Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.It can be inferred from the passage that:I. The Tunision military court stuck by the facts in a certain case even though the popular sentiment on the issue went against the verdict of the court.II. Military judges cannot have jurisdiction over all matters.III. Though not perfect, what's happening in Tunisia offers hope for more.a)I & IIb)II & IIIc)I & IIId)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.