Police claim media reports on detainee abuse at Dhoonidhoo were inaccurate, yet pledge to implement reforms

The police have stated that they will address the issues highlighted in the HRCM report, while simultaneously asserting that media coverage of the findings failed to consider the report's underlying purpose or the depth of the matters discussed within it.

Regarding the 2025 Annual Report of the "National Preventive Mechanism" (NPM) published by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), the Maldives Police Service stated that it recognizes the vital role independent institutions play in enhancing institutional accountability, ensuring transparency, and protecting human rights. Furthermore, the police service noted that the monitoring efforts conducted under the "Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (OPCAT) clearly demonstrate the significant national priority accorded to these issues.

The police stated that the issues highlighted in the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) report are systemic challenges and are not exclusive to any single institution. Furthermore, the police emphasized that the findings in the report are intended as recommendations and guidance for improvement, rather than legal determinations of criminal misconduct or wrongdoing.

The service expressed concern over the language and interpretations used by certain media outlets in their coverage of the report. The police statement further noted that the news was disseminated without regard for the report's true intent or the depth of its findings, and failed to account for the resource constraints and operational challenges facing the institutions.

The police emphasized the vital importance of responsible journalism and uncovering the facts of a matter to provide the public with accurate information. In a statement, the service assured that it remains committed to working with the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and other relevant stakeholders to address the issues highlighted in the report and to enhance the quality of its services. Furthermore, the police provided assurances that they will continue all necessary efforts to ensure their operations align with legal frameworks and international standards.

Despite the police's assertions, the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) report highlighted several incident reports where detainees were handcuffed and isolated after using foul language and disobeying orders during searches. The report noted that under Article 34(e) of the regulations governing custodial jails, officers are authorized to use handcuffs as a disciplinary measure. This authority applies when a detainee remains defiant after being temporarily removed from their cell, or if their behavior poses a risk of injury or danger to themselves or the custodial officers. In such cases, officers may exercise their discretion to restrain the individual to halt their actions.

The report states that under this article, officers are authorized to use handcuffs, leg irons, mouth gags, straitjackets, or any other appropriate restraints to restrict a detainee's movements. This authority may only be exercised if the detainee exhibits disobedience or acts in a manner that poses a threat of injury or danger to themselves or the correctional officers.

The report emphasizes that handcuffing and isolating detainees should not be used as a punitive measure against disobedient inmates to maintain prison order. Instead, these actions must be implemented only as temporary measures to ensure the immediate safety of both officers and detainees.

The report states that the area where detainees are kept in handcuffs is a custodial exercise yard, noting that it is not an appropriate space for isolation. It highlights that the area becomes extremely hot during midday and that detainees are sometimes kept there for extended periods on mats, with their hands and feet bound by cable ties.

Although officers reported that detainees would be granted opportunities for prayer and restroom use during such periods, it was noted that these actions were not recorded in the official logs. Furthermore, a review of the documentation at Dhoonidhoo revealed that the privileges of the detainees held at the facility had been suspended for a duration of 14 days.