The state has said that they believe the PIN code of for the phone must to be given when ordered by the court even if there is no specific law for handing over the PIN code.
At the hearing today in the trial of the MP for Kimbidhoo constituency and former Commissioner of Police, Abdulla Riyaz today, the defence asked a number of questions to the prosecution.
And so when the defence asked under which law does one have to provide the PIN code for a phone, the state responded that they believe it has to be handed over when the court orders it regardless of lacking the specific law.
The other question brought up by the defence is if the court order against MP Riyaz has a phrasing which asks for the PIN code of the phone. The state prosecutor responded that the court order says to handover all the information necessary to inspect the content on the phone and it includes the PIN code as well.
In the court orders against the Leader of the Jumhooree Party Qasim Ibrahim and the Secretary General of President Maumoon, Abdul Aleem, the court specifically asked for the phone lock code fingerprint. Riyaz’s representation referred to those court orders and said that the court order against Riyaz does not say so.
The Defence Lawyer said that if the court order said so, Abdulla Riyaz would have handed over the information and he didn’t obstruct the police intentionally.
And the lawyer said that the phone is connected to every aspect of life and so Riyaz must be granted the right to give or withhold the information and ordering to give the PIN code for the phone when Riyaz exercised his right to remain silent is a violation of his constitutional rights.
Referring to the rulings of some courts in other countries regarding the acquisition of phone unlock codes through court orders, the lawyer said that giving the PIN code is testifying against oneself.
The Defense also noted that the police did not follow the chain of custody when they took custody the phone of MP Riyaz when the officers took the phone to the police HQ in their hands.
As defence evidence, the defence presented some of the court orders while the prosecution submitted the names of four police officers and a few documents.
The judge presiding on the case said that there would be a another hearing tomorrow.