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 先生遭逮捕并随后被剥夺自由不属于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。
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 arrested, with which he was charged and for which he was subsequently sentenced, and there have been no allegations made that these are vague or lacking in legal certainty. The sentence imposed upon him of 4 months and 24 days is the lesser of the two possible prison terms and therefore cannot be said to contradict either article 56 of the Constitution of Maldives or article 15 of the Covenant. Whether indeed Mr. Mahloof deserved the maximum prison sentence or whether his sentence should have been converted to a fine, is not for the Working Group to assess, as otherwise it would be taking on the role of the national courts. The Working Group therefore concludes that the arrest and subsequent deprivation of liberty of Mr. Mahloof do not fall within category I of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.