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 testimonies against him were based on hearsay; that he was not afforded a public trial; and that his subsequent imprisonment was in fact solitary confinement and constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Government rebuts all these submissions by noting that there were no violations of the rights of Mr. Mahloof to a fair trial, or at least these were not of such gravity as to render the detention of Mr. Mahloof arbitrary. To that end, the Government specifically points to what it calls the double threshold implemented by the Working Group, whereby there must first be a violation of due process rights and thereafter it must be of sufficient importance as to declare the entire process null and void.