38. 来文方进一步提出，没有可靠证据证明 Mahloof 先生如其第二起案件听证会上所指称的那样，越过了警方的路障。其第二起案件审理过程中两位证人的证词系基于道听途说。据来文方称，这违反了国际正当程序标准，违反了伊斯兰教法，也违反了《刑法》第 20 章规定的罪行法律责任要件。此外，鉴于只有一位目击证人作证称 Mahloof 先生越过了路障，充分证据标准未能满足，因为此类情况中适用的伊斯兰教法规定，须有两位证人方能证明案件成立。
38. It is further argued that there is no credible evidence to prove that Mr. Mahloof crossed police barricades, as alleged during the hearings on his second case. Two of the witness testimonies at his second trial were based on hearsay, which is a purported violation of international standards of due process, sharia law and the requirements of offence liability, as set out in chapter 20 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, given that only one witness testified that Mr. Mahloof had crossed the barricades, the standard of adequate evidence was not met, as the sharia law applicable in such circumstances stipulates that two witnesses are required to prove a case.