37. 来文方进一步指出，法庭程序匆匆进行，没有任何合理理由。开始的时候，刑事法庭是以通常的步调审理两起案件，平均每月举行一次听证会。但是，2016 年 6 月 19 日，法庭违反正常的刑事诉讼程序，在控辩双方所有的质证环节均已结束后，准予一名警员就针对 Mahloof 先生提起的第一起案件作出对其不利的证词。2016 年 7 月 10 日，听取了控辩双方就 Mahloof 先生据称从警方手中逃跑事件的结案陈词。2016 年 7 月 18 日，Mahloof 先生被传唤出席闭门听证会，并被判犯有阻挠警方执行公务罪，判处入狱服刑 4 个月零 24 天。在 2016 年 7 月18 日下午宣布上述量刑结果前，曾于同日传唤 Mahloof 先生出席其第二起案件的听证会。听证会上，法官宣布将于次日听取结案陈词。尽管辩方表示反对，但法官还是裁定不准许辩方证人出庭作证。2016 年 7 月 25 日，在其律师已被禁止参与诉讼的情况下，Mahloof 先生被从马富士岛的监狱带上刑事法庭，在针对其提起的第二起案件中再次被判犯有阻挠警方执行公务罪，并被另处以 6个月的监禁。
37. The source further points to the unjustifiable haste of the court proceedings. At first, the two cases were conducted by the criminal court at a typical pace, with a hearing once a month, on average. However, on 19 June 2016, in violation of normal criminal procedure, a police officer was allowed to testify against Mr. Mahloof in relation to the first case against him, after all the prosecution and defence testimonies had concluded. On 10 July 2016, the concluding statements of both the prosecution and the defence were heard regarding the incident involving Mr. Mahloof’s alleged flight from the police. On 18 July 2016, Mr. Mahloof was summoned to a closed hearing, convicted for the offence of obstruction of police duty and given a prison sentence of 4 months and 24 days. Before that sentence was pronounced on the afternoon of 18 July 2016, he had been summoned for a hearing of his second case that same day. During that hearing, the judge announced that the concluding statements would be heard the next day and, despite objections from the defence, decided not to allow defence witnesses to testify. On 25 July 2016, his lawyer having been barred from taking part in the proceedings, Mr. Mahloof was brought to the criminal court from Maafushi prison, again convicted for obstruction of police duty in the second case against him and imprisoned for six additional months.