36. 更具体地说，来文方称 Mahloof 先生在针对其提起的第二起案件听证会上被剥夺了传唤任何辩方证人出庭的权利。关于不准许 Mahloof 先生请辩方证人出庭，法庭的理由是，伊斯兰教法以及法律原则规定控方须证实所有指控，而辩方一般来说并不需要证明据称犯下的罪行没有发生。来文方提出，上述裁定违反了手段平等原则，也违反了《公约》第十四条第三款(戊)项，其中明文规定刑事审判中的被告有权让辩方证人在与控方证人同等的条件下出庭并接受质证。
36. More specifically, the source alleges that Mr. Mahloof was refused the right to present any defence witnesses during the hearings for the second case against him. In not allowing Mr. Mahloof to present defence witnesses, the court argued that sharia law and legal principles stipulate that the prosecution is required to prove any charges and that the defence generally does not need to prove that the alleged offence did not take place. The source argues that this decision violated the principle of equality of arms, as well as article 14 (2) (e) of the Covenant, which explicitly provides defendants in a criminal trial with the right to obtain the attendance and examination of defence witnesses under the same conditions as witnesses for the prosecution.