Tag: juvenile court

HRCM attends Juvenile Court after summons, agrees to cooperate with enquiry

The Juvenile Court has stated today that all five members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) have complied with the court’s order and attended a meeting at the court this morning (March 17).

The order was sent after HRCM members had failed to attend two meetings requested by the court in recent weeks.

Juvenile Court Spokesperson Zaima Nasheed stated that the court was requesting the meetings in order to question the HRCM members about a confidential report that they shared with the court concerning the sentencing of a 15 year old rape victim to flogging and house arrest.

The court maintains that, although the HRCM has included in its report that the case was one of sexual assault and harassment, the court was in fact presiding over a case concerning the crime of consensual fornication.

Alleging that the HRCM included fabricated information in the report, the Juvenile Court spokesperson stated that the members had been summoned to a meeting, and not a court hearing.

“They [HRCM members] attended Monday’s meeting as though they were coming to a court hearing, complete with being accompanied by legal representation. It was not a hearing though, just a meeting held to clarify some issues,” Zaima stated.

Zaima said that the court requires all members of the HRCM to explain to the court’s panel of judges why “fabricated information was included in the report”, as well as “the reasoning behind the need to compile such a report”.

Zaima further revealed that HRCM President Mariyam Azra had requested that the commission be allowed to submit their answers to the court’s queries in writing.

The court refused this request, however, and insisted that the members attend meetings at the court in order to verbally respond to questions put to them by an assigned panel.

According to the Juvenile Court, the HRCM had initially objected to this, quoting Article 27(a) and 27 (b) of the Human Rights Commission Act.

Article 27 (a) states that “no criminal or civil suit shall be filed against the President or Vice President or a member of the Commission in relation to committing or omitting an act in good faith whilst undertaking responsibilities of the commission or exercising the powers of the Commission or the powers conferred to the Commission by a law”.

Additionally Article 27 (b) states “the Commission can only be questioned or a suit can be filed against the Commission in court regarding a component in a report published by the Commission following an inquiry, should sufficient evidence be available to prove the component is false”.

The court responded by quoting the same article, as well as Article 141(d) of the Maldives constitution, arguing that this made it obligatory for the HRCM to oblige with the questioning.

Article 141(d) of the constitution states that “persons or bodies performing public functions, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, eminence, dignity, impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts”.

The HRCM is then said to have agreed to cooperate, on account that it is given a period of ten days after the parliamentary elections scheduled for March 22 before the first questioning session.

Zaima then said that the court has agreed to grant the HRCM the requested period of time.

“We did this with consideration towards the work of the HRCM and the nature of this matter that we are looking into,” the Juvenile Court’s Spokesperson said.

HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoud stated that the HRCM was not prepared to comment on the matter at present.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Juvenile Court postpones order to summon HRCM members

The Juvenile Court has postponed an order summoning all members of the Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) to discuss their alleged misleading of the public over the court’s work.

An official from the Juvenile Court has today confirmed to local media that it has now asked all members to produce themselves to the court next Monday (March 17) at 9:30am.

The official told local newspapers that the decision was made in compliance with the commission’s request made due to three members being out of town and the other two also unable to attend.

The Juvenile Court has previously sent letters to the commission on two occasions asking them to discuss a report made regarding a 15 year old minor charged for fornication in 2012.

The court has claimed the report contained misleading information that gave a “negative impression” of the court’s conduct. The report was also said to contain statements that could be considered as attempts to influence the court’s work.

In a matter relating to criticism of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz has this week said that the maintenance of the respect and the positive reputation of the courts was a constitutional responsibility of all state authorities.

Following the HRCM members’ failure to comply with the court requests last Sunday (March 9), the court issued the summons for today.

The report in question came during the trial of a 15 year-old girl who had given birth to a baby which was later discovered buried in the outdoor bathroom at her residence. Her stepfather was subsequently charged with sexual abuse of a child and committing premeditated murder.

The 15 year-old was convicted of premarital sex at the Juvenile Court on February 26 and sentenced to 100 lashes and eight months of house arrest  after confessing to fornication with another man.

The Attorney General’s Office appealed the case on March 27 last year following appeals from international human rights advocacy organisations and Avaaz.org, which launched an online petition that gained over two million signatures.

On August 21, 2013, the High Court decided to overturn the minor’s sentence after she denied having confessed to consensual sex with an unknown partner during the Juvenile Court trial.  Authorities have previously said the minor had confessed to having consensual sex during a separate investigation into her abuse.

According to Islamic Fiqh scholars, a confession of fornication can be retracted before the resulting sentence is carried out in full, the High Court statement added.

It was further noted by the court that there were discrepancies in the statement given by the girl to the Juvenile Court. The High Court concluded that the minor – found to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder – was unable to correctly define pre-marital sex according to the law.

The High Court argued that its verdict had been based on evidence that the girl was “unfit for trial” during investigations into her alleged abuse and the subsequent Juvenile Court hearings.

The court said that the minor had provided her original statement in the capacity of a victim and not a suspect, and that authorities had therefore not given her the fundamental rights legally required of a suspect in a crime.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Human Rights Commission receives Juvenile Court summons

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has been summoned to the Juvenile Court for a report that gave a “negative impression” of the court’s conduct during the sentencing of a 15 year old rape-victim to flogging and house arrest.

Following the release of the confidential report, the Juvenile Court has sent an order to every individual involved from the HRCM, summoning them to a court hearing this Wednesday (March 12) at 1:30pm.

The HRCM stated that they will release an official press statement after the court summons this Wednesday.

On February 26 2013 the Juvenile Court convicted the 15 year old girl on the grounds of fornication and sentenced her to 100 lashes and 8 months house arrest. The case attracted global concern from both local and international organisations, and the charges were later annulled in August of the same year.

Although the sentence was eventually annulled, the case attracted international attention to the Maldives’ juvenile court system and their policies in dealing with victims of sexual abuse.

Speaking with Minivan last year, HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoud said that the sentence represented a “continuous failure” on behalf of the whole state to protect children and other victims of sexual abuse.

The HRCM submitted an investigative report on how the court handled the case, taking into account safeguards, rights, and protections afforded to a victim of child abuse under the Maldivian constitution, Islamic Shariah, and international human rights standards.

Spokesperson for the Juvenile Court Zaima Nasheed explained that some points outlined in the HRCM report were not reflective of how the court conducted its work. She noted that it portrayed a negative impression of the court and tried to exert undue influence on its work.

Zaima added that the HRCM did not hold any discussions or ask for any questions from the Juvenile Court while they were compiling their review.

The Juvenile Court wished to clarify that they sent a letter to the HRCM last month to arrange a meeting, though the commission said that it would not be able to attend.

Following this, the court compiled a written document with all of its concerns and shared this with the HRCM. In addition to this, the court asked to meet again with the HRCM yesterday (March 9) at 10am. The HRCM did not respond to the letter and failed to attend the meeting, said Zaima.

In light of this, the HRCM was in breach of the constitution’s Articles 141, said Zaima. These state that no officials performing public functions can “interfere with and influence the functions of the courts”, instead they must “assist and protect the courts to ensure the independence, eminence, dignity, impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts.”

Following the 15 year-old’s conviction, local NGO Advocating the Rights of Children (ARC) called on the Maldivian government to pass legislation concerning the treatment of sexual abuse victims.

ARC also previously called for reforms of the juvenile justice system and reform of the current protection mechanisms provided to minors who are kept in state run institutions, such as homes and foster programs.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Four minors acquitted of terrorism charges

Four minors from the island of Thinadhoo in Gaaf Dhaalu atoll charged with terrorism over arson attacks on February 8, 2012 were acquitted by the Juvenile Court today.

The minors were accused of setting fire to the Thinadhoo police station during protests that erupted across the country in the wake of a brutal police crackdown on a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) march in the capital Malé.

MDP supporters took to the streets after former President Mohamed Nasheed declared that his resignation the previous day was “under duress” in a “coup d’etat” instigated by mutinous elements of the security forces in collusion with the then-opposition.

A Juvenile Court official told local media today that the minors were found not guilty as the prosecution was unable to prove their culpability based on the testimony of witnesses at the trial.

Witnesses had testified that they saw the minors throwing rocks at the police station and helping to set fire to a police motorcycle. The verdict however noted that none of the witnesses saw any of the rocks hit either a police officer or the station.

Witnesses for the defence insisted that the minors did not participate in the arson attacks although they were present in the area at the time.

The Juvenile Court judge stated in the verdict that the prosecution’s witness testimonies established that the minors were guilty of obstructing the police. However, the judge noted, the court could not alter the charges pressed against the accused for sentencing.

Today’s verdict was delivered more than a year after the terrorism trial began with two recent hearings postponed or canceled.

On February 8, protesters in Thinadhoo – an MDP stronghold in the south – set fire to the island’s police station, magistrate court, atoll council office and all police vehicles.

Nine policemen were assaulted and subsequently treated at the Thinadhoo regional hospital. Police declared at the time that the island was unsafe for police personnel, claiming “MDP supporters have threatened to attack residences of policemen”.

Following its investigation into the nationwide unrest and violence on February 8, the police forwarded over 100 cases to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) office, requesting that 108 individuals be charged with terrorism.

Acts of arson are considered terrorism under the Terrorism Prevention Act enacted by the administration of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. The offence carries a jail term of between 10 to 15 years.

While more than 100 persons were charged with terrorism, most cases currently remain stalled at the Criminal Court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Juvenile Court postpones terrorism trial of minors

The Juvenile Court has postponed the sentencing of four minors charged with terrorism for their alleged involvement in the arson attack on Thinadhoo Court on February 8, 2012.

A verdict was due on February 6, but the court postponed sentencing to Thursday. However, the court local media a verdict will now be delivered on February 24.

A court official told newspaper ‘Haveeru’ that the sentencing had to be postponed because the four minors and their lawyers did not attend court today. The official had said that the court will take action against them.

Protests erupted across the country on February 8, after a brutal police crackdown on an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest against the party was ousting from power the previous day.

Protestors on Gaaf Dhaalu Atoll Thinadhoo Island set fire to the police station, magistrate court, atoll council office, and all police vehicles. Nine policemen were attacked and subsequently treated at the Thinadhoo Regional Hospital. Police officials at the time declared the area unsafe for local policemen as “MDP supporters have threatened to attack the residences of policemen.”

The police initially requested the Prosecutor General (PG) to charge 108 persons in connection with the unrest.

The PG pressed terrorism charges against the minors under article 6 (b), with reference to article 2 (f,g) of the Terrorism Prevention Act. Article 6 (b) states that any person found guilty of the act of terrorism shall be sentenced between 10 and 15 years imprisonment or banishment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Only six convicted minors completed reintegration programmes in 2013

The Juvenile Court has released the statistics from last year showing the number of convicted minors that applied to participate in the Correctional Center for Children, revealing that 21 had applied to take part in the programs and only six completed it successfully.

According to a statement issued by the court gave the opportunity to participate for 16 minors out of 21 that applied to the rehabilitation programmes, aimed to facilitate reintegration into society.

Of the 16 charged, the Juvenile Court stated that five minors were charged with drug and alcohol related offenses, two charged with fornication and sexual misconduct, four charged with theft, two with robbery, two charged with objection to order and one charged with assault and battery.

The court said that the purpose of the programmes was to give a second chance for minors charged with criminal offenses to reintegrate in to the society and also to determine minors charged with criminal offenses that are working and studying and to help them continue their studies and work if they were sentenced.

In addition, the Juvenile Court said the program included teaching different types of work to minors charged with criminal offenses.

The court noted that those participating in the program had varied reasons for not completing, and also that there were minors that repeated criminal offences during the programme.

The Juvenile Court said that these programs were conducted in accordance with the court’s child correctional programs conducted under the regulation on juvenile justice procedure articles 19 and 20.

The programmes are conducted in cooperation with all the concerned authorities, and juveniles taking part in the programmes will have to participate in different programmes conducted by the correctional centre for children, the Juvenile Justice Unit, the National Drug Agency programmes and programmes conducted by the Ministry of Gender and Human Rights as well as different social programs conducted by NGOs, the Juvenile Court said.

A report made by Dr Aishath Ali Naaz for the Asia Foundation titled ‘Rapid situation assessment of gangs in Male’ 2012’’ suggested that minors are the most vulnerable within gangs and that they were used by gang leaders to carry out the gang’s dirty work, such as selling drugs and alcohol, inflicting harm on others and vandalizing property.

Dr Naaz’s reports said that judges have the discretion to deliver a more lenient sentence with regard to most criminal offences committed by offenders who are 16 years old or younger and gang leaders exploit this fact by using minors to carry out crimes.

Last year the Juvenile Court concluded 125 cases, with 54 of the cases concluded being drug related offenses committed by minors.

According to the Juvenile Court statistics the Prosecutor General filed 103 cases last year while 83 cases were filed in the Juvenile Court the year before.

The statistics also showed that 584 cases were brought before the judges to decide upon the extension of pretrial detention period for arrested minors.

Speaking this week at the inauguration of a youth camp aimed at preparing adolescents for integration into the workplace, Home Minister Umar Naseer pledged to introduce mandatory government service for school leavers.

Speaking at the same event, Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed spoke of the need to create a responsible young generation.

“There is no pleasure any one can reap from frequenting scenes of crimes. It is by strongly staying away from crime and being responsible that real happiness can be achieved,” Waheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court hears witnesses in February 8 arson attack on Thinadhoo police station

The Juvenile Court has taken the statements of seven witnesses produced in defence of the minors charged with an arson attack on Thinadhoo Police Station in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll during the anti-government protest on February 8, 2012.

The incident followed the controversial transfer of presidential power and was accompanied by widespread unrest across the country.

The juvenile court’s media official told local media that there would be one more hearing scheduled before delivering the verdict where the state and respondents will be allowed to submit their final statement and last words.

According to the media official one of the four minors produced one witness in his defence, while a second minor produced six witnesses.

The court refused to give details of what the defence witnesses said due to the nature of the case.

However, the court confirmed that the next hearing was scheduled to next Monday (19 November).

Journalists and the public are not allowed to enter the hearings of cases conducted at the Juvenile Court.

Juvenile Court Spokesperson Zaeema Nasheed did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

February 8 was a day which saw protests erupt across the country after a brutal police crackdown on a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) protest against the party’s controversial ousting from power the previous day.

Protestors on Gaaf Dhaalu Atoll Thinadhoo set fire to the police station, magistrate court, atoll council office, and all police vehicles. Nine policemen were attacked and subsequently treated at the Thinadhoo Regional Hospital. Police officials at the time declared the area unsafe for local policemen as “MDP supporters have threatened to attack the residences of policemen.”

Initially the police requested the Prosecutor General (PG) to charge 108 persons in connection with the unrest.

The PG pressed terrorism charges against the minors under article 6 (b), with reference to article 2 (f,g) of the Terrorism Prevention Act.

Article 6 (b) states that any person found guilty of the act of terrorism shall be sentenced between 10 and 15 years imprisonment or banishment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Juvenile Court sentences 17 year-old boy to four months in prison for kissing girl

Additional reporting by JJ Robinson

The Juvenile Court has sentenced a 17 year-old boy to four months in prison after he kissed a 16 year-old girl in a court waiting room.

The girl was sentenced to four months house arrest.

The sentences were given after the boy was brought to court for a remand hearing in an ongoing drugs case, and kissed the girl who was in the waiting room. The pair were convicted for indecent behaviour and contempt of court for kissing on court premises.

“The boy was taken out of where those in custody are kept to the general waiting area, and walked right up to a girl standing there and kissed her in public. We found the girl to be 16 years of age,” a Juvenile Court official told Minivan News on condition of anonymity.

The official said although the girl involved in the matter had been sentenced to four months under house arrest, the court had ruled to delay implementation of the sentence for three years as this was her first offence. If the girl did not commit repeat offences of a similar nature in the next three years, the sentence against her would be annulled, the official said.

The four months would be added to the boy’ s drug sentence, the official added.

Harsh sentencing

Belying the country’s reputation as a luxury honeymoon destination, Maldivian courts issue harsh sentences for sexual offences.

In February 2013 a 15-year-old rape victim was sentenced to 100 lashes and eight months of house arrest, for a separate offence of fornication.

The girl had given birth to a baby in June 2012, which was discovered buried in the outdoor shower area of her home. Her stepfather was later charged with child sexual abuse, possession of pornographic materials and committing premeditated murder.

Following global outrage and a two-million strong petition threatening a tourism boycott by online activist group Avaaz.org, the girl’s sentence was overturned in the High Court on appeal.

Meanwhile in July 2013 the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the judiciary’s watchdog body – rejected the recommendation of its own subcommittee calling for the suspension of Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed.

Multiple leaked videos circulating on social media showed the judge fornicating with unidentified foreign women in a Colombo hotel room.

The JSC declined to suspend the judge, citing “lack of evidence”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

HRCM claims mandate pushed to limit over 15 year-old’s flogging sentence

The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has said its mandate has been pushed to the limit after “braving” the country’s courts to oppose a controversial flogging sentence handed to a 15 year-old sexual abuse victim that was overturned this week.

The flogging sentence handed to the minor by the Juvenile Court in February was  overturned by the High Court yesterday (August 21) after the girl denied confessing to having had consensual sex with an unknown partner.

HRCM member Jeehan Mahmoud said that the decision to punish the minor, which has since garnered global media attention, represented a “continuous failure” on behalf of the whole state to protect children and other victims of sexual abuse.

She therefore called on all stakeholders to strengthen their internal mechanisms for protecting vulnerable people in the country.

“Lots of money has been invested, but we have failed to uphold a system,” said Jeehan. “There must be a better translation into reality. We need to ensure that the group works for all cases – rather than the one or two that gain international attention.”

Jeehan said that as part of efforts to appeal the flogging sentence handed to the minor, the HRCM had adopted what she called an unprecedented tactic of “braving the courts” as a third party by directly approaching the judiciary.

“We required permission from the courts,” said Jeehan. “This was a groundbreaking opportunity…we pushed our mandate to its limits.”

Authorities had previously said that the minor had confessed to having consensual sex during a separate investigation into her alleged abuse that had resulted in the birth – and subsequent murder – of her baby.

On the back of the High Court’s ruling yesterday (August 21), Amnesty International – which has previously warned that the 15 year-old’s case was the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of the country’s treatment of victims of sexual offences – has released a statement welcoming the decision.

“Annulling this sentence was of course the right thing to do. We are relieved that the girl will be spared this inhumane ‘punishment’ based on an outrageous conviction,” said Amnesty’s Deputy Asia-Pacific Director Polly Truscott.

Amnesty went on to argue that the sentence ought not to have been imposed in the first place, before calling for a moratorium on flogging.

Despite the moratorium calls, President Dr Mohamed Waheed defended the wider use of Islamic Sharia in the country’s courts, while expressing his satisfaction with the High Court verdict this week.

“I also note that [the] verdict has established beyond doubt the sound principles of Islamic Shariah for such cases and became part of the country’s legal framework,” said the president in a statement.

“Considering the state of the country today, with sexual violence against women and children increasing daily, it is essential for the criminal justice system to ensure that women and children do not become prey to further abuse. I believe that establishing procedures necessary for the legal framework to protect such children is a welcome development to ensure that such tragic incidents do not repeat.”

Waheed added that he saw the decision as “major progress” in the protection of children’s rights. He concluded by saying that the child was still under the state’s care.

“The state will continue to provide the assistance she needs to overcome the tragic ordeals she endured and live a happy life in our society.”

Attorney General (AG) Azima Shukhoor echoed President Waheed’s comments today, arguing that Islamic Sharia is perfectly well-equipped to protect the rights of children.

The AG also spoke of an online Avaaz petition calling for both the minor’s sentence to be overturned as well as an end to flogging, criticising those she said had “politicised” the issue, arguing that they had made the work of Maldivian authorities difficult.

The online petition was signed by over 2 million people – a group more than six times the population of the Maldives.

The Maldivian judicial system currently practices a combination of common law and Islamic Sharia. Article 142 of the country’s constitution mandates that any matter on which the constitution or the law is silent must be considered according sharia.

Maldivian civil society group Advocating the Rights of Children (ARC) meanwhile has continued to press the government for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure.

This protocol provides an additional avenue of complaint should the state fail to uphold the rights of a child, which ARC mantain would greatly improve upon current domestic mechanisms.

“The case of the 15- year old girl is a good example of how the procedure could have been used to approach the UN Committee,” the group’s co-founder Zenysha Shaheed Zaki told Minivan News.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)