85. 在工作组看来，Mahloof 先生在本案当中获得了拥有法律代理的权利，存在争议的 2016 年 7 月 25 日听证会除外。法庭因有违妥善司法之行为禁止某位律师参与诉讼，这的确是完全有可能发生的情况。这一点工作组在本案当中不予细究。但是，法庭禁止某位律师参与诉讼，不能意味着被告可以一直没有法律代理。本案当中，Mahloof 先生的一位律师遭禁，而另一位律师未能出席听证会，从而使 Mahloof 先生在其被判处 6 个月监禁的案件结案听证会上没有了任何法律代理。马尔代夫政府未能说明曾付出何种努力以让 Mahloof 先生的另一位律师出席听证会，或者更确切地说，未能说明为何听证会不能暂停以允许 Mahloof 先生获得必要的法律代理或确保他得到法律援助。事实上，看起来法庭根本未采取任何行动来保证 Mahloof 先生享有获得法律代理的权利。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(丁)项之情事。
85. In the present case, it appears to the Working Group that Mr. Mahloof was afforded the right to legal representation, except at the contested hearing on 25 July 2016. It is indeed entirely possible for a court to bar a lawyer from proceedings for conduct incompatible with the proper administration of justice, a point which the Working Group is not examining in the present case. However, this cannot mean that the defendant remains without legal representation. In the present case, one of the lawyers of Mr. Mahloof was barred and the other lawyer failed to appear at the hearing, leaving Mr. Mahloof without any legal representation at the concluding hearing of his trial, when he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Government presented no explanation of the efforts that were undertaken to bring Mr. Mahloof’s other lawyer to the hearing, or indeed why the hearing could not have been adjourned to allow the requisite legal representation or ensure that he had legal aid. In fact, it appears that the court simply did nothing to preserve the right of Mr. Mahloof to legal representation. The Working Group therefore concludes that there has been a violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.