zh stringlengths 1 4.19k | en stringlengths 1 3.42k |
|---|---|
2. 工作组依照其工作方法(A/HRC/33/66)，于 2016 年 12 月 16 日向马尔代夫政府转交了关于 Ahmed Mahloof 的来文。该国政府于 2017 年 3 月 17 日对来文作出答复。该国已加入《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》。 | 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/33/66), on 16 December 2016 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Maldives a communication concerning Ahmed Mahloof. The Government replied to the communication on 17 March 2017. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right... |
3. 工作组视下列情形下的剥夺自由为任意剥夺自由： | 3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases: |
(a) 显然提不出任何法律依据证明剥夺自由是正当的(如：某人刑期已满或尽管大赦法对其适用，却仍被关押)(第一类)；(b) 剥夺自由系因某人行使《世界人权宣言》第七、第十三、第十四、第十 | (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I); |
(b) 剥夺自由系因某人行使《世界人权宣言》第七、第十三、第十四、第十八、第十九、第二十和第二十一条以及(对缔约国而言)《公约》第十二、第十八、第十九、第二十一、第二十二、第二十五、第二十六和第二十七条所保障的权利或自由(第二类)；(c) 完全或部分不遵守《世界人权宣言》以及当事国接受的相关国际文书所 | (b) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II); |
(c) 完全或部分不遵守《世界人权宣言》以及当事国接受的相关国际文书所所确立的接受公正审判权国际标准，情节严重，致使剥夺自由具有任意性(第三类)；(d) 寻求庇护者、移民或难民长期遭受行政拘留，且无法得到行政或司法复 | (c) When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary ch... |
(d) 寻求庇护者、移民或难民长期遭受行政拘留，且无法得到行政或司法复议或补救(第四类)；(e) 剥夺自由违反国际法，因为存在基于出生、民族血统或社会出身、语 | (d) When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy (category IV); |
(e) 剥夺自由违反国际法，因为存在基于出生、民族血统或社会出身、语言、宗教、经济状况、政治或其他见解、性别、性取向、残疾或任何其他状况的歧视，目的在于或可能导致无视人人平等(第五类)。 | (e) When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can r... |
联 合 国 A/HRC/WGAD/2017/15 | United Nations A/HRC/WGAD/2017/15 |
大 会 Distr.: General | General Assembly Distr.: General |
16 June 2017 | 16 June 2017 |
提交的材料 | Submissions |
来文方的来文 | Communication from the source |
4. Ahmed Mahloof 生于 1980 年 3 月 26 日，系马尔代夫公民。来文方报告称，Mahloof 先生在遭逮捕和拘押前曾从事政治活动，是 2011 年与前总统穆蒙·阿卜杜勒·加尧姆一道组建马尔代夫进步党的主要人物之一。Mahloof 先生还曾是反对党联盟组织“马尔代夫反对派联盟”的一名发言人。该组织呼吁政府开展对话并启动临时进程，使所有政党均可藉此参与体制改革并建立一条通往 2018 年民主选举的道路。 | 4. Ahmed Mahloof, born on 26 March 1980, is a Maldivian citizen. The source reports that prior to his arrest and detention, Mr. Mahloof engaged in political activity, being one of the leading figures in establishing the Progressive Party of the Maldives in 2011, together with the former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. ... |
5. 在成为声称政府内部存在大规模腐败和缺乏透明度的唯一一位人民议会议员和首批来自政府内部的领导人之一后，Mahloof 先生于 2015 年 2 月被逐出进步党。来文方指出，Mahloof 先生作为现总统最直言不讳的批评者之一脱颖而出。自被逐出进步党以来，Mahloof 先生还曾投身前总统穆罕默德·纳希德 2015 年 2月遭监禁事件引发的反政府抗议活动的前沿。 | 5. Mr. Mahloof was expelled from the Progressive Party in February 2015, after he became the only member of the People’s Majlis (parliament) and one of the first leaders from within the Government to allege large-scale corruption and lack of transparency within the Government. The source notes that Mr. Mahloof stood ou... |
6. 来文方报告称，Mahloof 先生最早于 2015 年 3 月 25 日被捕，因为据称他冲过了警方设置的路障，擅自闯入封锁区域。据警方称，在前总统穆罕默德·纳希德于 2015 年 3 月 13 日因恐怖主义罪名被定罪，而前国防部长穆罕默德·纳齐姆又在接受审判的情况下，反对派于 2015 年 3 月 25 日在马累举行示威活动。作为应对示威活动的部分安保措施，警方设置了路障。根据《第 5/2008 号法律》(即《警察法》)第 75 条结合该法第 72 条，Mahloof 先生正式被控犯有妨碍警方执行公务罪。 | 6. The source reports that Mr. Mahloof was first arrested on 25 March 2015 because he allegedly disturbed road barricades installed by the police and trespassed on a cordoned-off area. According to the police, they had installed the barricades as part of security measures taken in response to demonstrations held in Mal... |
7. Mahloof 先生被关押在多妮多岛的拘留所。2015 年 3 月 26 日，刑事法庭将其拘留期限延长了五日。2015 年 3 月 31 日，Mahloof 先生被再次带上刑事法庭，又被还押了五日。当时，法庭还下令对其实行软禁。 | 7. Mr. Mahloof was detained in Dhoonidhoo detention centre and on 26 March 2015, the criminal court extended his detention for a period of five days. On 31 March 2015, Mr. Mahloof was again brought before the criminal court and was remanded in custody for a further five days. On that occasion, the court ordered him to ... |
8. 2015 年 4 月 3 日，Mahloof 先生再次被带上刑事法庭，庭上主审的是曾判定前总统纳希德恐怖主义罪名成立的法官。该法官提出释放 Mahloof 先生，条件是他在接下来的 30 天内不得参与由四人以上组成的公共集会。当 Mahloof 先生拒绝接受上述条件时，其拘押又被延长了 15 天。 | 8. On 3 April 2015, Mr. Mahloof was again brought before the criminal court where the judge who had convicted former President Nasheed for terrorism was sitting. The judge offered Mr. Mahloof his release on condition that he would not participate in a public assembly consisting of more than four people for the next 30 ... |
9. 在还押听证会之后，警方指控 Mahloof 先生拒绝登上押送他回多妮多岛拘留所的警车并企图逃跑。就这样，Mahloof 先生被关在多妮多岛拘留所，直至2015 年 4 月 12 日高等法院以等待可能进行的审判为由将其释放。高等法院指出，根据《宪法》第 49 条，“在判刑以前不得将任何人羁押，除非存在被告潜逃或不出庭的危险、出于保护公众的需要，或是存在干扰证人或扰乱证据的可能性，迫使法庭作出相反决定。释放可能须要遵守法庭规定的保释条件或其他出庭保障”。高等法院裁决，对 Mahloof 先生的延期拘押不符合《宪法》规定的任何还押条件，因此，为惩罚他拒绝远离四人以上集会而进行的持续拘押是非法的。 | 9. After the remand hearing, the police accused Mr. Mahloof of refusing to get into the police vehicle returning him to Dhoonidhoo detention centre and of attempting to flee. Mr. Mahloof was thus detained in Dhoonidhoo detention centre until 12 April 2015, when the High Court set him free pending a possible trial. The ... |
10. 高等法院作出裁决八个多月后，总检察长于 2016 年 1 月 11 日根据《警察法》第 75 条结合第 72 条，正式指控 Mahloof 先生因 2015 年 4 月 3 日拒绝登上警车并企图从警方手中逃跑而犯有阻挠警方执行公务罪。 | 10. More than eight months after the High Court ruling, on 11 January 2016 the Prosecutor General formally charged Mr. Mahloof with the offence of obstruction of police duty under section 75 of the police act, with reference to section 72 of the act, for refusing to get into a police vehicle and for attempting to flee ... |
11. 2016 年 2 月 28 日，在就 2015 年 4 月 3 日据称发生的事件针对 Mahloof 先生提起的刑事诉讼过程中，五名警员作证称，Mahloof 先生在离开刑事法庭后企图从警方手中逃跑并拒绝登上警车。两名辩方证人作证称，Mahloof 先生不是企图逃跑，而只是要拥抱他的妻子。 | 11. On 28 February 2016, in criminal proceedings against Mr. Mahloof regarding the alleged incident of 3 April 2015, five police officers testified that Mr. Mahloof had tried to escape from the police and had refused to get into the police van after leaving the criminal court. Two defence witnesses testified that Mr. M... |
12. 2016 年 4 月 5 日，总检察长根据《警察法》第 75 条结合第 72 条，正式指控 Mahloof 先生因在 2015 年 3 月 25 日举行的示威活动中越过警方路障而犯有另一项阻挠警方执行公务罪。 | 12. On 5 April 2016, the Prosecutor General formally charged Mr. Mahloof with another offence of obstruction of police duty under section 75 of the police act, with reference to section 72 of the act, for crossing police barricades during the demonstration held on 25 March 2015. |
13. 2016 年 5 月 18 日，三名警员就 2015 年 3 月 25 日发生的事件作出了对Mahloof 先生不利的证词。一名警员称，他目睹 Mahloof 先生越过路上设置的障碍，进入被警方封锁的区域。另两名警员作证称，他们只是从警方无线电中听说发生了这一罪行，并在据称发生的事件发生之后到达现场去逮捕 Mahloof先生。 | 13. On 18 May 2016, three police officers testified against Mr. Mahloof regarding the incident that had occurred on 25 March 2015. One officer said that he had witnessed Mr. Mahloof crossing barricades in the road and entering the area cordoned off by the police. The other two officers testified that they had only hear... |
14. 来文方称，2016 年 6 月 19 日，在控辩双方所有质证环节已经结束后，一名警员获准就第一起案子作出不利于 Mahloof 先生的证词，从而违反了刑事诉讼程序。该警员作证称：2015 年 4 月 3 日，他在马累拘留所的在押人员押送科当班；Mahloof 先生在被从还押听证会带出后，跑出了刑事法院的大门。Mahloof先生跑到街上后，他是第一个抓住 Mahloof 先生的警员。Mahloof 先生走出门来的时候，警车就停在门外。Mahloof 先生在被要求上车时跑开了。他怀疑Mahloof 先生跑开是为了从警方手中逃脱。 | 14. The source states that on 19 June 2016, in violation of the criminal procedure, a police officer was allowed to testify against Mr. Mahloof in relation to his first case after all the prosecution and defence testimonies had concluded. The officer testified that on 3 April 2015, he was working at the detainee escort... |
15. 2016 年 7 月 10 日，听取了控辩双方就 2015 年 4 月 3 日据称发生的事件所作的结案陈词。2016 年 7 月 18 日，Mahloof 先生突然被传唤出席闭门听证会，匆匆被判定阻挠警方执行公务罪名成立，并被判处 4 个月零 24 天监禁。 | 15. On 10 July 2016, the concluding statements of both the prosecution and the defence were heard regarding the alleged incident on 3 April 2015. On 18 July 2016, Mr. Mahloof was unexpectedly summoned to a closed hearing, summarily convicted of the offence of obstruction of police duty and sentenced to 4 months’ and 24... |
16. 来文方还称，2016 年 7 月 18 日一早，在 Mahloof 先生因第一起案子被判刑前，他曾被传唤出席针对他提起的第二起案子的听证会。在那场听证会上，尽管辩方表示反对，但法官还是裁定不允许辩方证人作证。据该法官称，此举是因为根据伊斯兰教法和法律原则，控方须证明所有指控，而辩方一般来说并不需要证明据称发生的罪行没有发生。 | 16. The source also states that early on 18 July 2016, before Mr. Mahloof was sentenced for his first case, he was summoned to a hearing on the second case against him. On that occasion, the judge, despite objections from the defence, decided not to allow defence witnesses to testify. According to the judge, this was b... |
17. 2016 年 7 月 21 日，在两起案件中代理 Mahloof 先生的辩护律师在电视上露面，就 Mahloof 先生的两起诉讼提出了下列关切： | 17. On 21 July 2016, defence lawyers representing Mr. Mahloof in the two cases went on television and raised the following concerns regarding his two trials: |
(a) 除违反《马尔代夫宪法》外，拘押 Mahloof 先生还侵犯了他根据《世界人权宣言》第九、第十、第十九、第二十和第二十一条以及《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第九、第十四、第十五、第十九、第二十二和第二十五条享有的权利，构成任意拘留； | (a) Apart from violating the Maldives Constitution, the detention of Mr. Mahloof violated his rights under articles 9, 10, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 9, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and constituted arbitrary detention; |
(b) 侵犯了 Mahloof 先生的接受公正审判权，情节严重，致使其拘押具有任意性。律师指出，Mahloof 先生的审判匆匆进行，缺乏对公平审判的基本原则以 | (b) The violations of Mr. Mahloof’s right to a fair trial were of such gravity as to give his detention an arbitrary character. The lawyers noted the haste with which Mr. Mahloof’s trials were conducted and the lack of respect for the basic principles of a fair trial and due process during a trial; |
(c) 有鉴于上述关切，律师宣布他们会把 Mahloof 先生的案件提交任意拘留问题工作组。 | (c) In the light of these concerns, the lawyers announced that they would be submitting Mr. Mahloof’s case to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. |
18. 在 Mahloof 先生的辩护团队召开新闻发布会后，2016 年 7 月 25 日，刑事法庭宣布禁止 Mahloof先生第二起案件中的一位代理律师在该案中为其代理。刑事法庭称，此举系因该律师在接受媒体采访过程中企图在公众当中制造关于该案的不良印象，从而企图利用大众媒体对该案结果施加不应有影响。同日，Mahloof先生在针对其提起的第二起案件中，在其律师被禁止代理该案的情况下，又被判定犯有阻挠警方执行公务罪，监禁 6 个月。 | 18. Following the press conference held by Mr. Mahloof’s legal defence team, on 25 July 2016, the criminal court announced that a lawyer representing Mr. Mahloof in his second case would be barred from representing him in the case. It stated that this was because in his media interview, the lawyer had attempted to crea... |
19. 2016 年 8 月 10 日，Mahloof 先生的第二项定罪结果被上诉至高等法院。上诉于 2016 年 8 月 22 日在高等法院登记，案件号 2016/HC-A/364。来文方称，自当日起，尽管已于 2016 年 9 月 25 日向高等法院提出加快审理该案的要求，并于2016 年 10 月 27 日提出在上诉出结果前暂停 Mahloof 先生第二次听证会的要求，但高等法院尚未回复。总检察长办公室 2016 年 11 月 2 日提交的书面材料中以法官的自由裁量权为由，重申了下级法院的裁定。 | 19. On 10 August 2016, Mr. Mahloof’s second conviction was appealed to the High Court. The appeal was registered at the Court on 22 August 2016 under case number 2016/HC-A/364. The source states that since that date, despite a request made to the High Court on 25 September 2016 to expedite the case and a request made o... |
20. 来文方还称，惩教署给了 Mahloof 先生 10 天假，用于到印度求医。目前，他正由家人陪同，在印度接受皮肤病治疗。Mahloof 先生的刑期预计将于 2017年 5 月 27 日结束，而这 10 天病假不会从其刑期中减除。 | 20. The source further states that the Department of Corrections gave Mr. Mahloof 10 days’ leave to seek medical attention in India, where he is currently undergoing treatment for a skin ailment, accompanied by his family. The 10 days’ medical leave will not be deducted from Mr. Mahloof’s sentence, which is expected to... |
21. 来文方认为，Mahloof 先生遭拘押构成任意剥夺自由，属工作组在审议提交其处理的案件时所指的第一、第二、第三和第五类任意拘留情况。 | 21. The source maintains that the detention of Mr. Mahloof constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty within categories I, II, III and V of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it. |
22. 首先，来文方提出，根据第一类，Mahloof 先生在两起案件中遭拘押具有任意性质，因为据称他曾采取的行动并不满足新《刑法》中规定的监禁标准。来文方具体指出，根据新《刑法》关于量刑指南表中规定的可以任何经过授权的惩处方法施加的惩处量问题的第 1004 条，量刑法官可将部分或全部刑期转换成在长度或数额上与监狱刑期具有同等惩处效果的非监禁替代惩处形式。第 1005 条中的表(即惩处方法对照表)确定了每种非监禁惩处方法与特定监狱刑期对应的长度或数额。来文方指出，由此看来，新《刑法》鼓励采用非监禁惩处形式，与此同时仍向公众和受害人保证犯罪人确实能充分得到罪有应得的惩处。 | 22. Firstly, the source argues that Mr. Mahloof’s detention in both cases is arbitrary under category I, because his alleged actions do not satisfy the criteria for imprisonment set forth in the new Penal Code. The source specifies that under section 1004 of the new Penal Code on the amount of punishment called for in ... |
23. 来文方还指出，在两起案件中据以给 Mahloof 先生定罪的《警察法》第 75条第(b)款规定，阻挠、妨碍或企图阻挠、妨碍警方执行任务和履行职责之行为，应处以不超过 12,000 卢菲亚(相当于约 780 美元)罚款或不超过 6 个月的监禁。 | 23. The source also notes that section 75 (b) of the police act, under which Mr. Mahloof was convicted in both cases, states that the penalty for obstructing, hindering or attempting to obstruct or hinder the implementation of the role and functions of the police shall be the imposition of a fine not exceeding Rf 12,00... |
24. 来文方进一步提出，鉴于 Mahloof 先生据称是在新《刑法》于 2015 年 7 月16 日生效以前犯下罪行，根据《宪法》的规定，应对之从轻处罚。来文方具体指出，《宪法》第 59 条规定，若某项罪行应施加的惩处从实施犯罪之时到量刑之时已经减轻，则被告有权获得从轻惩处。《刑法》第 10 条第(d)款规定，“作为一般原则，本法不适用于在其生效之日前发生或犯下的罪行。尽管如此，在本法开始实施后量刑时，对于本法生效之日前发生或犯下的罪行，若本法针对该罪行规定的刑罚低于此前法律规定的刑罚，则应根据本法对该罪行施加惩处。” | 24. The source further argues that given that Mr. Mahloof allegedly committed the offence before the new Penal Code came into effect on 16 July 2015, the Constitution requires that he receive a lesser punishment. The source specifies that article 59 of the Constitution states that if the punishment for an offence has b... |
25. 根据《警察法》，Mahloof 先生所判罪行应施以的最高处罚是不超过 6 个月的监禁。《刑法》中的相应条款第 532 条第(c)款将该罪行定为一级轻罪。《刑法》第 1002 条第(a)款显示，针对该轻罪施处的基准刑是监禁 4 个月零 24 天。可见，在根据《宪法》第 59 条规定考虑“从轻处罚”问题时，最高处罚应为 4个月零 24 天。 | 25. Under the police act, the maximum penalty for the offence of which Mr. Mahloof is convicted is imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. The corresponding section in the Penal Code, section 532 (c), grades this offence as a class 1 misdemeanour. Section 1002 (a) of the Penal Code shows that the baseline s... |
26. 根据惩处对照表(《刑法》第 1005 条)，新规定的最高处罚 4 个月零 24 天可转换为罚款 26,400 卢菲亚(相当于约 1,718 美元)。根据《警察法》第 75 条，罚款最高金额为 12,000 卢菲亚(相当于约 780 美元)。因此，根据《宪法》第 59条，应对 Mahloof 先生施以的从轻处罚是罚款 12,000 卢菲亚。 | 26. According to the punishment equivalency table (section 1005 of the Penal Code), the new prescribed maximum penalty of 4 months and 24 days would be converted into a fine of Rf 26,400 (equivalent to approximately $1,718). Under section 75 of the police act, the maximum fine is Rf 12,000 (equivalent to approximately ... |
27. 来文方补充称，在根据《刑法》第 1100 条适用基准刑的一般调节比例量刑时，情况就变得很明显：与《刑法》第 1101 条所载内容相反的是，Mahloof 先生所应承担的罪责并不高于其获判罪行的相应罪责。这是因为，与《刑法》第1102 条所载内容相反的是：Mahloof 先生的罪行没有造成特殊伤害；他没有像《刑法》第 1103 条所明确阐述的那样，以极为残忍或严重漠视人之尊严的方式犯下罪行；与《刑法》第 1105 条所述不同，Mahloof 先生所犯罪行没有需要赔偿的受害人。 | 27. The source adds that when general adjustments to baseline sentences are applied to the penalty, according to section 1100 of the Penal Code, it becomes evident that contrary to the provisions of section 1101 of the Code, Mr. Mahloof does not qualify for a higher level of culpability than the level required by the o... |
28. 最后，来文方指出，《刑法》第 1104 条第(d)款第(3)项规定“若犯罪人除所犯罪行外一直遵纪守法，则其被控所有罪行的基准刑均应降低一个或两个档次，由法庭公正量处。”因此，根据《刑法》，Mahloof 先生应减刑至 2 个月零 12天，折算成 14,400 卢菲亚的罚款(相当于约 937 美元)。该金额依然高于《警察法》规定的 12,000 卢菲亚。因此，Mahloof 先生所犯罪行本应施以不超过 12,000卢菲亚的罚款。 | 28. Finally, the source notes that section 1104 (d) (3) of the Penal Code states that “if the offender has otherwise led a law-abiding life; then the baseline sentence for all offences with which the offender has been charged shall be mitigated one or two levels, as the court finds to be just”. According to the Penal C... |
29. 来文方得出结论称，刑事法庭未能遵守使 Mahloof 先生有权获得从轻处罚的《宪法》第 59 条以及《刑法》各相关条款。因此，Mahloof 先生遭监禁构成任意拘留，属工作组在审议提交其处理的案件时所指的第一类任意拘留情况。 | 29. The source concludes that the criminal court failed to observe article 59 of the Constitution and the sections of the Penal Code entitling Mr. Mahloof to the benefit of a lesser punishment. The imprisonment of Mr. Mahloof therefore constitutes arbitrary detention under category I of the arbitrary detention categori... |
30. 关于第二类，来文方称 Mahloof 先生遭拘押系因行使其根据《公约》(马尔代夫于 2006 年 9 月 19 日加入《公约》)第十九条、第二十二条第一款和第二十五条以及《世界人权宣言》第十九条、第二十条第(一)款和第二十一条享有的见解和表达自由、结社自由以及政治参与自由等基本权利。来文方进一步援引《宪法》第 68 条，其中规定法庭在解释和适用《宪法》所载的权利和自由时须考虑马尔代夫已成为缔约国的国际条约。 | 30. In relation to category II, the source claims that Mr. Mahloof’s detention results from his exercising his fundamental rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association and freedom of political participation, provided for by articles 19, 22 (1) and 25 of the Covenant, to which Maldives acceded on ... |
31. 来文方明确指出，表达自由当中包含持有不同政治见解的权利。因此，来文方提出，指控 Mahloof 先生阻挠警方执行公务是借口，旨在限制作为政治领袖的 Mahloof 先生享有的见解和表达自由权。来文方回顾，Mahloof 先生一直是马尔代夫政府一位直言不讳的反对者，并曾推动向公众披露据称发生的一件牵涉总统的大规模腐败阴谋的相关信息。 | 31. The source specifies that freedom of expression includes the right to a dissenting political opinion. It therefore argues that the charge of obstructing police duty brought against Mr. Mahloof was a pretext for the curtailment of his right to freedom of opinion and expression as a political leader. The source recal... |
32. 来文方称，为了应对 Mahloof 先生的上述以及类似的评论和行动，政府将其锁定为目标，企图玷污他的形象，让他三缄其口。这种出于政治动机对Mahloof 先生进行骚扰的模式过去看得到，目前也正在以定罪和拘押的形式继续进行。来文方明确指出，除了前文概述的 Mahloof 先生遭拘押的情况外，他还于2016 年 2 月 7 日和 2016 年 2 月 12 日遭到警察传唤，目的是审问他关于总统参与腐败阴谋的指控。2016 年 3 月 11 日，Mahloof 先生因参加反腐集会而被捕。他于 2016 年 3 月 17 日获释。 | 32. The source claims that in response to these and similar comments and actions of Mr. Mahloof, the Government targeted him in an attempt to tarnish his image and silence him. This pattern of the politically-motivated harassment of Mr. Mahloof can be seen in the past and continues with his current conviction and deten... |
33. 关于据称侵犯结社自由权的问题，来文方回顾，Mahloof 先生是新近组建的反对党联盟组织“马尔代夫反对派联盟”的发言人。政府尚未承认该联盟是马尔代夫的一股政治力量。 | 33. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association, the source recalls that Mr. Mahloof was the spokesperson for the newly formed coalition of opposition parties, the Maldives United Opposition. The Government has not yet acknowledged the coalition as a political force in the country. |
34. 来文方还回顾，根据《宪法》第 73 条第(c)款第(2)项，Mahloof 先生有失去其议会席位的危险。该项规定，若某人被判犯有刑事罪行且所服刑期超过 12 个月，则他或她将丧失参选人民议会的资格。来文方据此指出，针对 Mahloof 先生有可能发生的任何进一步的出于政治动机的定罪及随之而来的监禁均有可能超过12 个月。 | 34. The source also recalls that Mr. Mahloof is in danger of losing his parliamentary seat, according to article 73 (c) (2) of the Constitution, whereby a person is disqualified from standing for election to the People’s Majlis if he or she has been convicted of a criminal offence and is serving a sentence of more than... |
35. 关于第三类，来文方指出了若干据称存在的违规之处，比如未能提供法律面前平等、接受独立而无偏倚的法庭审判、有机会咨询律师、妥善准备答辩以及接受公开审判等权利，从而违反了《公约》第十四条第一、第二和第三款。 | 35. With regard to category III, the source points to a number of alleged irregularities, such as the failure to provide equality before the law, the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, the right to have access to counsel, the right to prepare an adequate defence and the right to a public trial, in contrave... |
36. 更具体地说，来文方称 Mahloof 先生在针对其提起的第二起案件听证会上被剥夺了传唤任何辩方证人出庭的权利。关于不准许 Mahloof 先生请辩方证人出庭，法庭的理由是，伊斯兰教法以及法律原则规定控方须证实所有指控，而辩方一般来说并不需要证明据称犯下的罪行没有发生。来文方提出，上述裁定违反了手段平等原则，也违反了《公约》第十四条第三款(戊)项，其中明文规定刑事审判中的被告有权让辩方证人在与控方证人同等的条件下出庭并接受质证。 | 36. More specifically, the source alleges that Mr. Mahloof was refused the right to present any defence witnesses during the hearings for the second case against him. In not allowing Mr. Mahloof to present defence witnesses, the court argued that sharia law and legal principles stipulate that the prosecution is require... |
37. 来文方进一步指出，法庭程序匆匆进行，没有任何合理理由。开始的时候，刑事法庭是以通常的步调审理两起案件，平均每月举行一次听证会。但是，2016 年 6 月 19 日，法庭违反正常的刑事诉讼程序，在控辩双方所有的质证环节均已结束后，准予一名警员就针对 Mahloof 先生提起的第一起案件作出对其不利的证词。2016 年 7 月 10 日，听取了控辩双方就 Mahloof 先生据称从警方手中逃跑事件的结案陈词。2016 年 7 月 18 日，Mahloof 先生被传唤出席闭门听证会，并被判犯有阻挠警方执行公务罪，判处入狱服刑 4 个月零 24 天。在 2016 年 7 月18 日下午宣布上述量刑结果前，曾于同日传唤 Mahloof... | 37. The source further points to the unjustifiable haste of the court proceedings. At first, the two cases were conducted by the criminal court at a typical pace, with a hearing once a month, on average. However, on 19 June 2016, in violation of normal criminal procedure, a police officer was allowed to testify against... |
38. 来文方进一步提出，没有可靠证据证明 Mahloof 先生如其第二起案件听证会上所指称的那样，越过了警方的路障。其第二起案件审理过程中两位证人的证词系基于道听途说。据来文方称，这违反了国际正当程序标准，违反了伊斯兰教法，也违反了《刑法》第 20 章规定的罪行法律责任要件。此外，鉴于只有一位目击证人作证称 Mahloof 先生越过了路障，充分证据标准未能满足，因为此类情况中适用的伊斯兰教法规定，须有两位证人方能证明案件成立。 | 38. It is further argued that there is no credible evidence to prove that Mr. Mahloof crossed police barricades, as alleged during the hearings on his second case. Two of the witness testimonies at his second trial were based on hearsay, which is a purported violation of international standards of due process, sharia l... |
39. 此外，来文方称刑事法庭干涉了 Mahloof 先生获得法律咨询的权利，从而违反了《公约》第十四条第三款和《宪法》第 48 条第(b)款。来文方回顾，继Mahloof 先生的律师于 2016 年 7 月 25 日召开新闻发布会后，刑事法庭宣布在其第二起案件中代理 Mahloof 先生的律师将被禁止为其代理，因为该律师企图利用公共媒体对案件结果施加不应有的影响。 | 39. Moreover, the source alleges that the criminal court interfered with the right to access legal counsel, in contravention of article 14 (3) of the Covenant and article 48 (b) of the Constitution. The source recalls that following the press conference held by Mr. Mahloof’s lawyers on 25 July 2016, the criminal court ... |
40. 除被剥夺获得法律咨询的机会外，Mahloof 先生据称还被剥夺了出示辩方证据和传唤辩方证人的正当程序权。在 2016年 7 月 18 日的听证会上，法官裁定不准许辩方证人出庭作证，因为根据伊斯兰教法和法律原则，控方须证实所有指控，而辩方一般来说不需要证明据称犯下的罪行没有发生。来文方回顾，在刑事证据问题上，马尔代夫的法庭遵循的是伊斯兰教法的证据原则，而伊斯兰教法的证据原则规定，在原告未能传唤两名证人证明案件成立的情况下，必须给被告机会传唤证人为自己辩护。因此，来文方提出，鉴于只有一位警员作证称Mahloof 先生越过了路障，本应给辩方机会传唤证人来反驳指控。法庭没有给辩方上述机会。 | 40. In addition to being deprived of access to legal counsel, Mr. Mahloof was allegedly deprived of his due process rights to produce his own evidence and witnesses. At the hearing held on 18 July 2016, the judge decided not to allow defence witnesses to testify, as under sharia law and legal principles, the prosecutio... |
41. 来文方进一步称，刑事法庭未能确保公开审理，违反了《公约》第十四条第一款、《世界人权宣言》第十条、《马尔代夫宪法》第 42 条第(a)和(b)款以及《马尔代夫司法法》第 71 条。来文方指出，政府于 2016 年 7 月 18 日传唤Mahloof 先生出席闭门听证会，拒绝让马尔代夫以及国际上的观察者旁听，从而拒绝了 Mahloof 先生举行公开听证会的要求。来文方称，这构成对国际法的进一步违反。 | 41. The source further alleges that the criminal court failed to ensure a public trial, contrary to article 14 (1) of the Covenant, article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 42 (a) and (b) of the Constitution of Maldives and article 71 of the Judicature Act of Maldives. The source notes that the ... |
42. 此外，来文方称政府侵犯了 Mahloof 先生免遭残忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚的权利，违反了《公约》第七条、《世界人权宣言》第五条、《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》第 1 至第 2 条以及第 4 至第 7 条――马尔代夫于 2004 年 4 月 20 日加入该公约，也违反了《马尔代夫宪法》第 54 条。来文方回顾，Mahloof 先生 2016 年 7 月 18 日被判第一项罪名成立，随后被单独监禁在马富士岛监狱，与其家人和法律团队的互动有限。来文方还回顾，马尔代夫新出台的《禁止酷刑法》禁止单独监禁。 | 42. In addition, the source claims that the Government has violated Mr. Mahloof’s right to be free of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in contravention of article 7 of the Covenant, article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 1- 2 and 4-7 of the Convention against Torture and O... |
43. 最后，来文方提出，Mahloof 先生遭逮捕、拘押和定罪系因其批评和反对政府的政治见解，其拘押属于工作组在审议提交其处理的案件时所指的第五类任意拘留情况。 | 43. Finally, the source submits that Mr. Mahloof was arrested, detained and convicted because of his political opinions, which were critical of and in opposition to the Government, and his detention falls within category V of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases sub... |
政府的回复 | Response from the Government |
44. 2016 年 12 月 16 日，工作组按照其常规来文程序，将来文方的指控转交马尔代夫政府。工作组请马尔代夫政府从事实和适用的法律两个方面，就本案尤其是就来文方所作指控提供任何信息。工作组请马尔代夫政府在 2017 年 2 月 16 日前答复。2017 年 2 月 6 日，马尔代夫政府提出延期请求，获准。马尔代夫政府按照要求于 2017 年 3 月 17 日前作出了答复。 | 44. On 16 December 2016, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group invited the Government to provide any information regarding the case and in particular, on the allegations made by the source, both in respect of the fac... |
45. 马尔代夫政府提出，指控或是事实有误，或是构成对情况的错误描述。Mahloof 先生遭拘押有合理理由，系继其被依法判定犯有刑事罪行后实施的，符合国内和国际法律。所以说，他遭拘押不满足工作组在审议提交其处理的案件时所指的第一类、第二类、第三类和第五类任意拘留情况的判定标准。 | 45. The Government submits that the allegations are either factually incorrect or constitute a mischaracterization of the position. The detention of Mr. Mahloof is justified, in accordance with domestic and international law, following his lawful conviction for criminal offences. His detention therefore does not satisf... |
46. 关于第一类，马尔代夫政府援引人权委员会第 1997/50 号决议，其中规定若拘押系国内法庭“遵循国内法律、《世界人权宣言》规定的相关国际标准以及当事缔约国已接受的相关国际文书”作出的最终裁定之结果，则视为不具有任意性。 | 46. Regarding category I, the Government refers to resolution 1997/50 of the Commission on Human Rights, in which detention is considered not to be arbitrary if it results from a final decision taken by a domestic court “in conformity with domestic law, with the relevant international standards set forth in the Univers... |
47. Mahloof 先生被一个马尔代夫法庭根据马尔代夫法律判定有罪。这一事实使本案不能在第一类范畴内辩论。在两起案件中，Mahloof 先生因阻挠警方执行公务，根据《第 5/2008 号法律》(即《警察法》)第 72 和第 75 条被判定有罪。 | 47. Mr. Mahloof was convicted by a Maldivian court and in accordance with Maldivian law. This fact precludes the case from being argued within category I. In both cases, Mr. Mahloof was convicted under sections 72 and 75 of Law No. 5/2008 (police act), for obstructing police duty. |
48. 应由法官从法律规定的各种惩处形式中裁量决定哪种惩处形式合适，这是马尔代夫法律下的一项既定原则。在这个问题上，法官受到《宪法》第 59 条和《刑法》第 10 条第(d)款的约束，必须对其经裁量后视为适当、有意义的较轻惩处给予应有的考虑。已按照《宪法》规定对 Mahloof 先生从轻惩处，因为他被判处的刑期是 4 个月零 24 天。 | 48. It is a well-established principle under Maldivian law that it is at the discretion of the judge to determine the proper form of punishment from the various forms of punishment provided by the law. In that respect, the judge is bound by article 59 of the Constitution and section 10 (d) of the Penal Code, in that he... |
49. 马尔代夫政府指出，来文方想当然地认为法官本应将《刑法》规定的基准刑 4 个月零 24 天监禁转换成《刑法》第 1004 和第 1005 条规定的罚款，这是对法律的错误解读。正如《刑法》第 1004 条特定措辞本身所明确显示的那样，《刑法》第 1002 条所载量刑指南表规定的监禁期限的转换问题应由法官裁量决定。 | 49. The Government notes that the assumption by the source that the judge should have converted the baseline sentence of 4 months’ and 24 days’ imprisonment under the Penal Code into a fine under sections 1004 and 1005 of the Penal Code is a misinterpretation of the law. The conversion of the incarceration term provide... |
50. 关于第二类，马尔代夫政府提出，2015 年 3 月 25 日被捕时，Mahloof 先生的行为并不和平。更具体地说，马尔代夫政府称，Mahloof 先生在领导一场公共集会活动时把路障推到一边，进入了一片封锁区域。这片“绿色区域”是马尔代夫警署根据《和平集会自由法》第 24 条第(c)款封锁起来的，其中设有主要政府机构以及安保机构的总部，包括总统办公室、马尔代夫国防军总部和警署总部。可见，上述行为未能满足《和平集会自由法》第 9 条规定的“和平”定义。 | 50. With regard to category II, the Government submits that when Mr. Mahloof was arrested on 25 March 2015, his actions were not peaceful. More specifically, it is submitted that Mr. Mahloof, while leading a public rally, had pushed the barricades aside and entered a cordoned-off area. Such a “green zone” area, cordone... |
51. 马尔代夫政府还提出，针对 Mahloof 先生的指控具体涉及他据称犯下的个人罪行，即把警方出于安保目的依法设置的路障推到一边，随后又非法进入已被警方封锁的区域，从而阻挠了警方执行公务。因此，马尔代夫政府得出结论称，上述事实使本案不能在第二类范围内辩论。 | 51. The Government also submits that the charge against Mr. Mahloof relates specifically to the allegation of the individual offence committed by him, namely obstructing police duty by pushing aside the barricades set up by the police pursuant to the law for security purposes and by subsequently unlawfully entering an ... |
52. 关于第五类，据马尔代夫政府称，没有证据表明与 Mahloof 先生持同样政治见解的人员在马尔代夫司法体系内遭受歧视性待遇。Mahloof 先生的政治见解在审判过程中未纳入考量。此外，除 Mahloof 先生外，还有其他人员因阻挠警方执行公务而被指控、定罪，随后判刑。 | 52. According to the Government, in reference to category V, there is no evidence to suggest that persons sharing the political opinion of Mr. Mahloof are treated in a discriminatory manner within the Maldivian judicial system. The political opinions of Mr. Mahloof were not taken into account during the trial. Furtherm... |
53. 马尔代夫政府拒绝接受关于 Mahloof 先生过去曾遭受出于政治动机之骚扰的指控，指出警方是在接到有关 Mahloof 先生指称现总统及其夫人银行账户内的钱款有问题的投诉后，于 2016 年 2 月 7 日和 12 日传唤他的。警方随后将该投诉归档，因为没有证据显示 Mahloof 先生犯下任何罪行。Mahloof 先生2016 年 3 月 11 日因在公共集会过程中不遵守警方指令和阻挠警方执行公务而被捕，因为他给一个推搡、攻击警员的人帮忙。Mahloof 先生还企图从警方手中逃脱。Mahloof 先生于 2016 年 3 月 18 日获释。总检察长在研究案件后决定不予起诉。 | 53. The Government rejects the allegations that Mr. Mahloof had been subject to politically motivated harassment in the past, noting that his summons by the police on 7 and 12 February 2016 was carried out following a complaint that he had made allegations regarding money in the bank account of the current President an... |
54. 马尔代夫政府还认为，Mahloof 先生遭拘押不满足第三类的判定标准。只要被告是在有律师协助的程序中根据国内法律被施以惩处的，那么存在违反正当程序情事本身并不一定使拘押具有任意性。政府援引“双重门槛”标准，即：首先，必须存在侵犯正当程序权之情事；其次，侵权情事必须重大到足以宣布整个程序无效，方能使拘押具有任意性。 | 54. The Government also maintains that the detention of Mr. Mahloof does not fulfil the criteria under category III. The existence of due process violations does not necessarily render detention arbitrary, provided that the defendant is punished in accordance with domestic law in a process in which he or she was assist... |
55. Mahloof 先生知道存在着两起针对他提起的案件，且拥有他选定的法律代理。继 Mahloof 先生的律师在 2016 年 7 月 25 日的新闻发布会上作出声明后，刑事法庭以企图利用公共媒体对案件结果施加不应有影响为由，裁定禁止其中一名律师代理 Mahloof 先生的案件。但是，禁止一名律师代理第二起案件，并未造成侵犯获得法律咨询的权利。 | 55. Mr. Mahloof knew of the existence of both cases against him and had legal representation of his choosing. Following statements made by Mr. Mahloof’s lawyers at a press conference on 25 July 2016, the criminal court barred one of them for attempting to unduly influence the outcome of the case by using public media. ... |
56. Mahloof 先生获得了充足的机会和时间来就针对他提起的两起案件准备答辩。从接到有关第一起案件指控的通知到随后于 2016 年 2 月 23 日举行的听证会之间，Mahloof 先生有 11 天的时间；从接到有关第二起案件指控的通知到随后于 2016 年 5 月 3 日举行的听证会之间，他有 7 天的时间。可以认为，上述时间足够准备答辩，未必与国际标准不符，尤其是未必与《公约》第十四条第三款(乙)项不符。没有任何国际预定时限可充当参考标准，用以评估是否曾给予法律团队以充足的时间来准备答辩。一般来说，时间是否充足取决于诉讼的性质以及案件独有的特征，包括案件的复杂程度。再者说，Mahloof 先生有能力寻求就法庭的裁决提出异议... | 56. Mr. Mahloof was given ample opportunity and time to prepare for his defence in relation to the two cases against him. He had 11 days between being informed of the charge in the first case and the subsequent trial hearing on 23 February 2016, and 7 days between being informed of the charge in the second case and the... |
57. 关于 Mahloof 先生在第二起案件的听证会上被剥夺了传唤辩方证人的权利从而违反了《公约》第十四条第三款(戊)项的指控，马尔代夫政府指出，传唤证人的权利是有局限性的，须在该权利与“无不应有拖延”地作出判决的必要性之间取得平衡。法庭裁定不准许拟传唤的证人出庭作证，因为传唤证人来证实针对被告的指控是控方的责任。由被告来证明自己清白，这既不是被告的责任，也不是一项一般原则。法庭还发现，审判过程中要求传唤的证人与调查阶段要求传唤的证人不同。此外，法庭还裁定，让被控在与被告有关的同一事件中犯有相关罪行的人员作证，这种作法是不能接受的。尽管如此，法庭并未阻止 Mahloof 先生要求传唤其他证人。但是，他没有这样做。 | 57. With regard to the allegations that Mr. Mahloof was refused the right to present defence witnesses during his second case hearing and that this was a violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, the Government observes that the right to present witnesses is subject to limitations that seek to balance it with th... |
58. 马尔代夫政府拒绝接受有关刑事法庭所依据的证据未能满足《刑法》第 20条规定的罪行法律责任要件的指控。政府提出，举证标准符合马尔代夫法律规定的举证要求相关规则。 | 58. The Government rejects the allegation that the evidence relied on by the criminal court failed to meet the offence liability prescribed in chapter 20 of the Penal Code. It submits that the evidentiary standard is in accordance with the rules of evidentiary requirements under Maldivian law. |
59. 除了第一起案件于 2016 年 7 月 18 日闭门举行的判决听证会外，第一起案件的所有审理听证会和第二起案件的所有听证会(包括审理听证会和判决听证会)均以公开听证会形式举行。记者、媒体和公众获准入庭旁听。 | 59. Except for the verdict hearing in the first case, which was held on 18 July 2016 as a closed hearing, all trial hearings of the first case and all hearings of the second case, including the trial hearings and the verdict hearing, were held as public hearings and journalists, media and the public were allowed to ent... |
60. Mahloof 先生未能就政府未能提供独立、无偏倚的法庭的指控作出说明。 | 60. Mr. Mahloof failed to provide an explanation for the allegation that there was a failure to provide an independent and impartial tribunal. |
61. 马尔代夫政府反驳了有关 Mahloof 先生被单独监禁，与其家人和法律团队互动有限，从而构成侵犯正当程序权的指控。政府指出，这项特定指控在事实方面没有根据，且有可能超出工作组的实际授权或称实质性授权。 | 61. The Government rebuts the allegation that Mr. Mahloof was held in solitary confinement and had limited interaction with his family and legal team, amounting to a violation of the right to due process. It notes that this particular allegation is factually groundless and may exceed the material or substantial mandate... |
讨论情况 | Discussion |
62. 工作组感谢来文方和马尔代夫政府就 Mahloof 先生的法律诉讼提交了大量的材料。工作组将着手依次审议据来文方称适用于 Mahloof 遭拘押情况的各个类别，同时铭记工作组有权仅以确定是否符合国际法相关规则为目的，评估国家司法管辖区内的法律和法庭程序。11 见第 40/2005 和第 59/2016 号意见。 | 62. The Working Group is grateful to both the source and the Government for their extensive submissions in relation to Mr. Mahloof’s legal proceedings. It will proceed to consider in turn each of the categories that the source has alleged apply to the detention of Mr. Mahloof, mindful that it is entitled to assess the ... |
63. 来文方首先提出，Mahloof 先生遭拘押具有任意性，属第一类范畴。Mahloof 先生系依据 2015 年 7 月 16 日生效的《第 9/2014 号法律》(即《刑法》)被判刑。鉴于据称 Mahloof 先生犯下的罪行实施于该法生效以前，来文方提出，根据《宪法》第 59 条的规定，Mahloof 先生有权获得从轻惩处，因为新《刑法》规定的惩处(最长监禁 4 个月零 24 天)比《警察法》规定的惩处(最长监禁 6 个月)轻。马尔代夫政府提出，Mahloof 先生系按《宪法》规定从轻惩处，因为他判了 4 个月零 24 天。 | 63. The source firstly argues that Mr. Mahloof’s detention is arbitrary within category I. Mr. Mahloof was sentenced on the basis of Law 9/2014 (the Penal Code), which came into force on 16 July 2015. Given that the alleged offence was committed by Mr. Mahloof prior to this law coming into effect, the source contends t... |
64. 来文方接下来提出，根据《刑法》第 1005 条(惩处方法对照表)，监禁刑罚本可以转换成罚款，但却未能转换。鉴于 Mahloof 先生被判处 4 年零 24 天监禁，来文方提出，这一剥夺自由的作法因缺乏法律依据而具有任意性，属于第一类情况。 | 64. The source goes on to argue that in accordance with section 1005 of the Penal Code (the punishment method equivalency table), the sentence of imprisonment could have been converted into a fine, which did not happen. Since Mr. Mahloof was sentenced to 4 months and 24 days of imprisonment, the source argues that this... |
65. 马尔代夫政府对上述论点的前提持有异议，指出何种惩处适用要由法官决定，法官享有在个体案件中确定适当的、有意义的惩处形式的自由裁量权。政府认为，Mahloof 先生系由一个马尔代夫法庭根据马尔代夫法律定罪，所以，主张Mahloof 先生遭拘押属于第一类情况是说不通的。 | 65. The Government disputes the premise of this argument, noting that the determination of the applicable punishment rests with the judge, who enjoys discretion to determine the proper and meaningful form of punishment in individual cases. The Government contends that Mr. Mahloof was convicted by a Maldivian court and ... |
66. 工作组认为，工作组有权评估法庭程序以及法律本身，以确定它们是否符合国际标准。2 但是，工作组也再次强调，在被促请审查国家司法系统对国内法律的适用问题时，工作组一贯避免取代国家司法当局的位置或充当某种超国家法庭。3 | 66. The Working Group considers that it is entitled to assess the proceedings of the court and the law itself to determine whether they meet international standards.2 However, 1 See opinions No. 40/2005 and No. 59/2016. 2 See opinion No. 33/2015, para. 80. the Working Group also reiterates that it has consistently refr... |
67. 所以，本案当中，查明授权拘押 Mahloof 先生是否有法律依据的任务就落在工作组肩上，而工作组无法得出没有依据的结论。《刑法》和《警察法》均含有 Mahloof 先生因之而被捕、遭到指控并随后被判刑的罪行的相关规定，来文方没有提出任何有关上述规定语焉不详或缺乏法律确定性的指控。Mahloof 先生被施处的 4 个月零 24 天刑罚是两种具有可能性的监狱刑期中较轻的一种，因而不能说有违《马尔代夫宪法》第 59 条或《公约》第十五条。Mahloof 先生到底是否理应处以最高的监狱刑罚，其刑罚是否本应转换成罚款，不是工作组应评估的问题，否则工作组就是在扮演国内法庭的角色了。因此，工作组得出结论认定，Mahloof 先生遭逮捕并随... | 67. In the present case, therefore, it falls to the Working Group to ascertain whether there was a legal basis for authorizing the detention of Mr. Mahloof and the Working Group is unable to conclude that there was not. Both the Penal Code and the police act include provisions for the crime for which Mr. Mahloof was ar... |
68. 来文方进一步提出，Mahloof 先生遭拘押属于第二类范畴，因其拘押系行使见解和表达自由、结社自由以及参与政治自由等基本权利的结果。马尔代夫政府反驳上述意见，认为在两起案件中 Mahloof 先生均犯下个人刑事罪行，两起案件均与其行使人权无关。 | 68. The source further argues that Mr. Mahloof’s detention falls within category II, as his detention resulted from the exercise of his fundamental rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association and freedom of political participation. The Government contests these submissions, arguing that in both ... |
69. 工作组指出，过去几年间，工作组审议了若干来自马尔代夫的案件，内容涉及表达与执政政权相左见解的个人。4 在本案中，工作组注意到，Mahloof 先生据称越过了警方路障，但是，就连马尔代夫政府都没有提出 Mahloof 先生的行为具有暴力性质或是导致他人进一步实施暴力。政府只是提出，Mahloof 先生的行为违犯了法律，而违犯法律本身就意味着其行为不再是和平行为。2 见第 33/2015 号意见，第 80 段。3 见第 40/2005 号意见。4 见第 33/2015 和第 59/2016 号意见。 | 69. The Working Group notes that over the past years it has considered a number of cases from Maldives, which concern individuals expressing opinions that are not in line with those of the ruling political establishment.4 In the present case, the Working Group notes that Mr. Mahloof allegedly breached police barriers, ... |
70. 工作组很难接受马尔代夫政府提出的论证思路，因为仅仅是越过警方路障并不一定意味着 Mahloof 先生的行为不再是和平的。工作组注意到，马尔代夫首都的地理面积不大。在首都强行划出的大片禁区，即所谓的绿色区域，实际上阻碍公众接近包括现总统官邸在内的大多数政府办公室所在区域。 | 70. The Working Group struggles to accept the line of argumentation proposed by the Government, since merely crossing police barriers does not necessarily mean that the actions of Mr. Mahloof were no longer peaceful. The Working Group notes that the capital of Maldives is not geographically large. The extensive exclusi... |
71. 主要政府办公室所在区域会对行动自由施加限制，这一点可以理解。但是，该区域会成为人们聚集起来表达政治见解的主要区域，这一点也是可以理解的。确切地说，是意料之中的。所以说，当局需要在保持政府办公室的安宁和安全与个人表达政治见解的权利之间取得合理的平衡。工作组相信，诸如绿色区域之类的地方会举行政治集会是意料之中的，会发生越过警方路障的情况也是意料之中的。考虑到首都的地理特征，尤其如此。只要其行为不具暴力性质，工作组怀疑逮捕每个越过路障者是否必要，确切地说，是否得当。工作组认为，在马累这样的地方仅仅是越过路障而没有任何暴力行为，不能说就使此类表达政治见解的行为不再是和平的行为。 | 71. While it is understandable that there would be restrictions on free movement imposed in areas where key government offices are located, it is also understandable and indeed expected that this would be the prime area where individuals would gather to express their political opinions. The authorities, therefore, need... |
72. 此外，工作组必须注意 Mahloof 先生对马尔代夫政治长期、积极的参与。还值得注意的是，根据《宪法》第 73 条第(c)款第(2)项，被判定犯有刑事罪行并服刑超过 12 个月者，不再具备参选国家立法机关的资格。Mahloof 先生已获判两个刑期：一个是 4 个月零 24 天，另一个是 6 个月。两项刑事罪行的监禁期加起来将近 11 个月，使 Mahloof 先生离失去资格成为马尔代夫人民在国家立法机关中的民选代表只有咫尺之遥。 | 72. Moreover, the Working Group must take note of the long-standing and active involvement of Mr. Mahloof in Maldivian politics. It is also notable that according to 3 See opinion No. 40/2005. 4 See opinions No. 33/2015 and No. 59/2016. article 73 (c) (2) of the Constitution, a person is disqualified from standing for ... |
73. 尽管对两起案件中向法官出示的不利于 Mahloof 先生的证据进行评估不是工作组的任务，但工作组注意到，Mahloof 先生因两项罪行之一获判了可能获判的最严厉刑罚，并因另一项罪行获判了相当重的刑罚。尽管 Mahloof 先生的行为从不具暴力性质，尽管他从无前科，尽管他事实上是一位极受尊重的社会成员并作为民选代表在立法机关中代表马尔代夫人民，他还是获判了上述刑罚。政府一直未能就针对两项罪行施加最高惩处给出任何其他合理解释。因此，工作组得出结论认定，Mahloof 先生遭逮捕及随后遭拘押属于工作组在审议提交其处理的案件时所指的第二类任意拘留情况。 | 73. Although it is not for the Working Group to assess the evidence that was presented to the judges in the two cases against Mr. Mahloof, it notes that for one of those offences, Mr. Mahloof received the harshest possible sentence and a considerable sentence for the other one. This was despite the fact that his action... |
74. 来文方还声称：Mahloof 先生遭拘押具有任意性，属于第三类范畴，因为他在一起案件中未获准传唤任何辩方证人，意味着违反了公平手段原则；法庭听证和宣判进行得简单而仓促；不利于他的证词系基于道听途说；未能对其进行公开审判；Mahloof 先生随后遭受的监禁实际上是单独监禁，构成残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚。马尔代夫政府反驳上述所有意见，指出 Mahloof 先生的接受公正审判权没有遭到侵犯，或至少没有遭到如此严重之侵犯以至于使其拘押具有任意性。为此，政府特地指出工作组所采用的被马尔代夫政府称之为双重门槛的标准。根据双重门槛标准，首先必须侵犯了正当程序权，其次侵犯正当程序权之情事必须足够严重，以至于使整个程序无效。 | 74. The source also alleges that Mr. Mahloof’s detention is arbitrary and falls within category III, as he was not allowed to present any defence witnesses in one case, which represents a violation of the equality of arms principle; that the court hearings and sentencing were carried out summarily and hastily; that the... |
75. 工作组注意到来文方列举了大量正当程序权据称遭到侵犯之情事。但是，工作组重申，评估证据是否充分或是处理据称国内法庭犯下的司法错误，不属于工作组的任务范围，除非存在表面证据证明国际法遭到违反。来文方提出的关于Mahloof 先生系在道听途说的证据基础上被定罪或是法官拒绝传唤辩方提出的几位证人的指控不应由工作组来评估，因为工作组不具备评估所有证人陈述内容的条件。 | 75. The Working Group notes the numerous alleged breaches of due process rights listed by the source. However, it reiterates that it does not fall within its mandate to assess the sufficiency of the evidence or to deal with errors of law allegedly committed by a domestic court, unless there is a prima facie breach of i... |
76. 工作组注意到，Mahloof 先生被预先阻止传唤证人作证，因为法官宣布根据伊斯兰教法和法律原则，控方须证实所有指控，而辩方一般来说不需要证明所指称的罪行没有发生。马尔代夫政府认为，传唤证人的权利不是一项绝对权利，法庭本来就有听取诉讼相关证据和拒绝听取无法就所审理的相关问题提供证据的证人作证的自由裁量权。 | 76. The Working Group notes that Mr. Mahloof was precluded from calling witnesses to testify, as the judge had declared that under sharia law and legal principles the prosecution was required to prove any charges and the defence generally did not need to prove that the alleged offence had not taken place. The Governmen... |
77. 的确，传唤证人的权利不是一项绝对权利。但是，正如人权事务委员会在关于在法庭和裁判所前一律平等和获得公正审判的权利问题的第 32 号一般性意见(2007 年)当中所指出的那样，存在着一项严格的义务，即尊重“让那些与辩护有关的证人出庭，并在审判的某个阶段有适当机会讯问和反驳反方证人的权利”(第 39 段)。在本案当中，Mahloof 先生律师的传唤证人要求遭到拒绝。如此全然拒绝允许任何证人代表辩方应传唤出庭，带有严重剥夺诉讼过程中的手段平等权利的特征，实际上违反了《公约》第十四条第三款(戊)项。 | 77. It is true that the right to call witnesses is not an absolute right. However, as the Human Rights Committee stated in its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, there is a strict obligation to respect the “right to have witnesses admitted that are re... |
78. 此外，工作组尤感关切的是，Mahloof 先生事实上没有受到公开审判，因为他于 2016 年 7 月 18 日被传唤出席闭门听证会，并被匆匆定罪。正如人权事务委员会在第 32 号一般性意见当中所指出的那样，“第十四条第一款确认法庭有权以民主社会中的道德、公共秩序或国家安全为理由，或当诉讼当事人的私生活的利益有此必要时，或在特殊情况下法庭认为公开审判会损害司法利益因而严格需要的限度下，拒绝所有或部分公众列席旁听。除了这种例外情况，审讯应开放给一般民众包括新闻界参加，不应只限于某种人。” | 78. Moreover, the Working Group is particularly concerned about the fact that Mr. Mahloof actually did not receive a public trial, as on 18 July 2016 he was summoned to a closed hearing and summarily convicted. As the Human Rights Committee stated in its general comment No. 32: “Article 14, paragraph 1, acknowledges th... |
79. Mahloof 先生的案件显然不属于就《公约》第十四条第一款所载举行公开审判之一般义务规定的任何例外情况。工作组注意到，政府称只有 2016 年 7 月 18日的听证会是闭门举行的。但是，政府未能就 2016 年 7 月 18 日举行的最后一场听证会为何要闭门举行提供任何合理解释。工作组指出，获得公开听证的权利涵盖整个诉讼过程，对结案阶段尤为重要，因为正义是在结案阶段被视为得以伸张的。闭门结案会削弱整个听证过程的透明度，构成违反《公约》第十四条第一款。 | 79. The case of Mr. Mahloof clearly did not fall into any of the prescribed exceptions to the general obligation to hold public trials under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Working Group notes the submission made by the Government that it was only the hearing on 18 July 2016 which was held behind closed doors. Howe... |
80. 来文方还声称，Mahloof 先生的律师于 2016 年 7 月 25 日被禁止参与诉讼，当日 Mahloof 先生被判犯有阻挠警方设置路障的罪行，并被判处另外监禁 6 个月。来文方还声称，Mahloof 先生获得充足时间准备答辩的权利遭到侵犯，因为就在 Mahloof 先生在闭门听证会上被匆匆判处入狱 4 个月零 24 天的 2016年 7 月 18 日当日，还举行了一场与另一项定罪有关的听证会。在该听证会上，法官宣布将于次日听取结案陈词，而审判将于 2016 年 7 月 25 日完成。2016年 7 月 25 日，Mahloof 先生在其律师未获准出席的一场听证会上被判处入狱 6个月。 | 80. The source also alleges that Mr. Mahloof’s lawyer was barred from the proceedings on 25 July 2016, when Mr. Mahloof was convicted for obstruction of police barriers and sentenced to a further six months’ imprisonment. The source also alleges that the right of Mr. Mahloof to adequate time to prepare a defence was vi... |
81. 马尔代夫政府提出，贯穿两项诉讼始终，Mahloof 先生得以拥有自己选择的法律代理，且其律师自两起案件的调查初始阶段即不间断地获得情况通报。但是，工作组指出，获得诉讼情况通报和获得充足时间准备答辩之间，存在着重大的区别。辩护团队提前一天接到准备结案陈词的通知，且被禁止出席 2016 年 7月 25 日举行的最后一场听证会。国际法虽未就多长时间构成准备答辩的“充足”时间规定任何固定期限，但工作组指出，这一问题通常取决于诉讼的性质以及案件的具体特点，包括其复杂程度。 | 81. The Government argues that throughout both proceedings Mr. Mahloof had the benefit of legal representation of his own choice and that his lawyers were kept continually informed from the initial stages of the investigations of both cases. The Working Group, however, notes that there is a significant difference betwe... |
82. 在本案当中，Mahloof 先生刚刚因一项罪行获刑，又于同日和他的法律团队一起被告知法庭将于次日听取另一起案件的结案陈词。这给了 Mahloof 先生及其律师最多 24 小时来准备最后陈词。工作组注意到，案件涉及到国家立法机关成员身为被告的情况，一定会引起公众的高度兴趣，带有政治色彩。在这种情况下，给辩方仅仅 24 小时来准备最后陈词意味着无视诉讼的性质，也无视案件的具体特点。此外，马尔代夫政府未就如此之极为短暂的通知期给出任何合理理由。来文方还指出，有关阻挠警方设置路障的案件于 2016 年 6 月和 7 月突然向前推进，用来文方的话说，叫作“罕见地仓促”推进。政府未就是什么原因导致案件如此迅速向前推进提供任何解释。诉讼出... | 82. In the present case, Mr. Mahloof had just been sentenced for one crime and on the same day he and his legal team were informed that the concluding statements in the other case would be heard the following day. That gave Mr. Mahloof and his lawyer a maximum of 24 hours to prepare the final statement. The Working Gro... |
83. 来文方称，当其律师被禁止出席进行结案陈词的 2016 年 7 月 25 日程序时，Mahloof 先生即被剥夺了法律代理。关于上述指控，工作组注意到马尔代夫政府对事实存有异议。据政府提交的陈述称，Mahloof 先生的律师当中只有一位被禁止参与诉讼，因为该律师就两起案件向媒体发表了声明。Mahloof 先生的另一位律师获准出庭但却没有出庭。 | 83. As for the source’s allegation that Mr. Mahloof was denied legal representation when his lawyer was barred from the proceedings on 25 July 2016, during which the concluding arguments were presented, the Working Group notes that the Government contests this fact. According to the submissions made by the Government, ... |
84. 工作组指出，正如《联合国与任何被剥夺自由者向法院提起诉讼的权利有关的补救措施和程序的基本原则和准则》(原则 9)所规定的那样，拥有律师的权利是正当程序权的基石，刑事诉讼中尤其如此。该权利对于妥善奉行手段平等和无罪推定原则必不可少。 | 84. The Working Group notes that the right to a lawyer is the cornerstone of the rights to due process, especially in criminal proceedings, as stipulated by the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court ... |
85. 在工作组看来，Mahloof 先生在本案当中获得了拥有法律代理的权利，存在争议的 2016 年 7 月 25 日听证会除外。法庭因有违妥善司法之行为禁止某位律师参与诉讼，这的确是完全有可能发生的情况。这一点工作组在本案当中不予细究。但是，法庭禁止某位律师参与诉讼，不能意味着被告可以一直没有法律代理。本案当中，Mahloof 先生的一位律师遭禁，而另一位律师未能出席听证会，从而使 Mahloof 先生在其被判处 6 个月监禁的案件结案听证会上没有了任何法律代理。马尔代夫政府未能说明曾付出何种努力以让 Mahloof 先生的另一位律师出席听证会，或者更确切地说，未能说明为何听证会不能暂停以允许 Mahloof 先生获得必要的法律... | 85. In the present case, it appears to the Working Group that Mr. Mahloof was afforded the right to legal representation, except at the contested hearing on 25 July 2016. It is indeed entirely possible for a court to bar a lawyer from proceedings for conduct incompatible with the proper administration of justice, a poi... |
86. 来文方暗示 Mahloof 先生不是由一个独立、无偏倚的法庭审判的，但却未能就这一指控提供任何详情。工作组因而无法就该问题作出任何评论。 | 86. The source has suggested that Mr. Mahloof was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, but has not provided any details regarding this allegation. The Working Group is therefore unable to make any comments on the issue. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.