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 prosecution is required to prove any charges and the defence generally does not need to prove that the alleged offence did not take place. The source recalls that in matters of criminal evidence, the Maldivian courts follow sharia evidence principles, which stipulate that when the plaintiff fails to produce two witnesses to prove the case, the defendant must be given the opportunity to produce witnesses in his or her defence. The source therefore argues that as only one policeman testified that Mr. Mahloof had crossed the barricades, the defence should have been given an opportunity to rebut the charge by producing witnesses. That opportunity was denied to the defence.