of the judiciary in the Maldives. In addition, the total abstention of compliance of the government to the ruling by the Supreme Court to immediately release the Judge created a dangerous precedent in ensuring the rule of law in Maldives. As there was no news of his whereabouts for two days and after having meetings with the family and trying out to initiate dialogue with concerned authorities, HRCM used its powers under the HRCM Act to issue a directive to the Ministry of Defense and National Security, for the Judge’s immediate release. When information on the place of detention was disclosed through the media, HRCM also mandated as National Preventive Mechanism conducted an unannounced visit on 19th of January 2012 to the premises where the judge was held. However, the military refused entry to the HRCM team and informed that no visits can be made without prior permission. HRCM was able to meet with the Judge on the 20th and 23rd January 2012. It was a pressing concern for the Commission that he had no access to his lawyer or been given an opportunity to meet with his family during his detention, although the Judge was kept in a safe facility without inflicting any injury or harm. i. The arrest of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court by MNDF was in violation of the; Article 24 of the constitution on Right to Privacy, Article 33 of the Constitution on Right to protect reputation and name, Article 45 of the Constitution on No unlawful arrest or detention, Article 46 of the Constitution on Power of arrest and detention, Article 47 of the Constitution on search and seizer, Article 48 of the Constitution on rights on arrest or detention, Article 69 of the Constitution on Non‐destructive interpretation of Constitution, Article 12(a) of the Judges Act stating that if a judge has been accused for a criminal offence and was not caught in action, the judge has to be arrested with a order from the court higher than the court where the judge works, Article 9 of ICCPR on the right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention and Article 6 of ICPED on taking necessary measures to hold criminally responsible for the acts of enforced disappearance. ii. The detention of the Chief Judge of Criminal Court in Girifushi by MNDF was in violation of the; Article 20 of the constitution on Equality, Article 21 of the constitution on Right to life, Article 41 of the constitution on Freedom of Movement and Establishment, Article 43 of the constitution on Chapter: Article 9, Arbitrary Arrest a) HRCM concluded its Investigation into this issue on 27th May 2012 and the Report was sent out to the relevant stakeholders and to those found accountable for conducting the act. The arrest of Chief Judge on 16th January 2012 was unlawful; violating the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Maldives and international conventions that Maldives is a party to. Following are the findings of the Investigation report. 36