FROM PAGE 3

to make decisions. He also said Joy had no authority to issue any order or instruction to Palak.

When the tribunal observed that although Joy was an adviser, he did not take steps to prevent the crimes, the defence argued that he held no executive authority.

As the prosecution argued that the internet was shut down to conceal the atrocities and that the highest number of protesters were killed in the three days following the shutdown, Palak, who was in the dock, said on August 2, during the movement, he had decided to step down in line with the students’ demands.

He said he had spoken in favour of the protesters at a cabinet meeting and had informed the former PM of his decision to resign.

Palak also claimed that the internet had never been shut down and the international airport remained operational.

The tribunal chair then asked him to sit, saying it would hear him further when necessary.

Following the hearing, the tribunal fixed January 21 for passing an order on whether charges would be framed in the case.

Meanwhile, the prosecution yesterday sought the highest punishment for all 16 accused after concluding its arguments before the International Crimes Tribunal-2 in a case filed over the killing of seven people, six of whom were later set on fire in Ashulia.

Defence arguments in that case will begin on Sunday.