HUDO Centre Investigator: They entered with a vehicle designed as an ambulance and it had South Sudan number plate. The first defendant is not shown on that vehicle but, the photos and the dates can approve that he was in that group. Accusing panel: Where are the headquarters of the two organizations PPF and POM? Investigator: They are in USA. Accusing panel: Is there any impact caused by the reports submitted by PPF and POM? Investigator: Yes, the reports clearly tarnished the image of Sudan internationally in political, economic and military terms. Accusing panel: who attended Addis Ababa conference? Investigator: The first, second and third defendants. Accusing panel: what about the student who was burnt? Investigator: He was burnt during student demonstration by Molotov and he does not know who threw it at him. Accusing panel: what is the role of the third defendant? Investigator: He presented a report in the conference citing that, there is a church that was demolished at Alezba in Khartoum North. Accusing panel: what is the role of the fourth defendant? Investigator: He is the person who passed on the photos of the burned student which were used in Addis Ababa conference by the second defendant. He is the person who alleged that, the student converted to Christianity and he is the same person who facilitated the meeting between them and the burned student. At 02:25 pm the investigator requested the judge to adjourn court session since he was tired. The judge granted his request and adjourned court to 24th October 2016. Notes;      The security was tight and keen. The defendants’ supporters, activist and their families were not allowed in the courtroom. They were ordered to leave the court premises which forced them to wait under the bridge adjacent to court. The defendants’ lawyers are not in agreement or coordinated. The conflict is on who shall represent the 4th defendant and about the court procedure. The observers indicated that the judge got irritated when the defendants’ lawyers disagreed. The first defendant’s lawyer objected to the written translation and asked the judge for legal explanation for the written paper. The defendants sitting order on the bench had changed.