90. 正如马尔代夫政府所指出的那样，并非是遵守正当程序权方面的每一处违规均使当事人随后遭到的拘押具有第三类所指的任意性。事实上，正如工作组工作方法第 8(c)段所指出的那样，剥夺正当程序权之情事必须如此严重，以至于使剥夺自由具有任意特点，方属于第三类情况。马尔代夫政府提出，本案不满足上述高门槛。但是，工作组感到关切的是，尽管 Mahloof 先生获准得到法律代理，但这并没有覆盖针对他提起的整个诉讼过程。事实上，他在律师不在场的情况下被判了刑。政府未就为何不能推迟听证会以允许获得法律代理作出任何解释。在一起案件中，Mahloof 先生的律师只得到 24 小时来准备最后陈述，而在另一起案件中，Mahloof 先生未获准传唤任何辩方证人。工作组注意到，上述侵权情事对奉行手段公平原则造成了严重影响。此外，在一起案件中，Mahloof 先生在未提出任何合法理由的情况下被剥夺了接受公开审判的权利。有鉴于此，工作组得出结论认定，所有上述侵犯正当程序权之情事均如此严重，以至于使Mahloof 先生所遭受的拘押属于工作组在审议提交其处理的案件时所指的第三类任意拘留情况。
90. As noted by the Government, not every irregularity regarding the observance of due process rights renders the subsequent detention of the person in question arbitrary under category III. Indeed, as is stated in para. 8 (c) of the Working Group’s methods of work, to fall within category III, the denial of due process rights must be of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. The Government contends that the present case does not satisfy this high threshold. However, the Working Group is concerned that although Mr. Mahloof was allowed legal representation, this did not extend to the entirety of the proceedings against him and he was in fact sentenced without his lawyer being present. The Government has presented no explanation as to why the hearing could not have been postponed to allow legal representation to be available. Mr. Mahloof’s lawyers were given only 24 hours to present the final submissions in one case and Mr. Mahloof was not allowed to present any witnesses in his defence in the other case. The Working Group notes that these violations seriously affected the observance of the principle of equality of arms. In addition, in one case Mr. Mahloof was denied a public hearing without any legal justification being invoked. The Working Group therefore concludes that all such violations of due process rights are of such gravity that the detention of Mr. Mahloof falls within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.