The State Security Court (SSC) underlined its keenness to expeditiously resolve the case of destabilizing Jordan, in what is known the 'sedition case', and to determine the legal stature of the accused, in order to reveal the truth and resolve the controversy over its circumstances, with a judicial decision revolves around the truth.

At the beginning of its second hearing on Tuesday, the SSC issued its preparatory decision regarding the defense response raised by the two defense attorneys during the previous hearing.

During today's hearing, the court heard the rest of the Public Prosecution witnesses, and the Public Prosecutor concluded with evidence it had presented.

In order to complete the procedures and roles of the trial as stipulated in the provisions of the law, defendants were made aware of the text of Article 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their right to submit defensive statements and evidence, they were granted a time period to submit them, if any, and the court approved the request of the accused and their defense attorneys, and postponed hearing the case for that purpose until Sunday.

The court held its hearing in the presence of the ruling body and the representative of the Public Prosecution Office, the public prosecutor of the court.

The State Security Court (SSC) underlined its keenness to expeditiously resolve the case of destabilizing Jordan, in what is known the 'sedition case', and to determine the legal stature of the accused, in order to reveal the truth and resolve the controversy over its circumstances, with a judicial decision revolves around the truth.

At the beginning of its second hearing on Tuesday, the SSC issued its preparatory decision regarding the defense response raised by the two defense attorneys during the previous hearing.

During today's hearing, the court heard the rest of the Public Prosecution witnesses, and the Public Prosecutor concluded with evidence it had presented.

In order to complete the procedures and roles of the trial as stipulated in the provisions of the law, defendants were made aware of the text of Article 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their right to submit defensive statements and evidence, they were granted a time period to submit them, if any, and the court approved the request of the accused and their defense attorneys, and postponed hearing the case for that purpose until Sunday.

The court held its hearing in the presence of the ruling body and the representative of the Public Prosecution Office, the public prosecutor of the court.