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。诉讼出人意料地异常提速，这也对辩方团队妥善准备整个诉讼的能力造成了影响。有鉴于此，工作组得出结论认定，存在违反《公约》第十四条第三款(乙)项之情事。
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 Group notes that the case involved a member of the national legislature as the accused, which necessarily attracted a high level of public interest and had political undertones. To allow the defence a mere 24 hours to prepare the final statement in such circumstances is to ignore the nature of the proceedings and the specific characteristics of the case. Moreover, the Government has presented no legitimate reasons for such an extremely short notice period. The source has also noted what it describes as the “unusual hastiness” with which the case regarding the obstruction of the police barriers suddenly proceeded in June and July 2016, and the Government has not provided any explanation as to what caused the case to proceed with such expediency. That also had an impact upon the ability of the defence team to prepare adequately for the overall proceedings, which unexpectedly and unusually had picked up speed. The Working Group therefore concludes that there has also been a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.