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 the need to reach a judgment “without undue delay”. The court ruled that the proposed witnesses would not be allowed to testify because it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to provide witnesses to prove the charge against the defendant. It is neither the responsibility of the defendant nora general principle for the defendant to prove his innocence. The court also found that the proposed witnesses at the trial proceedings were not the ones proposed during the investigation stage. Furthermore, the court ruled that it was not acceptable to take witness statements from persons who were charged with offences relating to the same incident as that of the accused. Despite this, the court did not prevent Mr. Mahloof from requesting that additional witnesses be called. However, he failed to do so.