内容摘要："And the idea is basically to take away the humanitarian looting as a tool of war of Hamas to give it to the population. Eventually to have a sterile zone in the south of Gaza where the entire population can move for its own protection."

"And the idea is basically to take away the humanitarian looting as a tool of war of Hamas to give it to the population. Eventually to have a sterile zone in the south of Gaza where the entire population can move for its own protection."

One of the three presiding judges, Julieta Makintach, stepped down this week.Maradona, a former Napoli and Argentina midfielder, had been recovering at his home in Buenos Aires from brain surgery for a blood clot in November 2020 when he died of a heart attack, aged 60.

Among the medical team on trial are a neurosurgeon, a doctor and a night nurse. They claim the retired footballer refused further treatment and should have stayed at home for longer after his operation.If convicted, they face between eight and 25 years in prison.Earlier this week, Prosecutor Patricio Ferrari accused Makintach of

after she took part in a documentary about the case.As a trailer for the documentary series, called Divine Justice, was played in court, defence lawyer Rodolfo Baque shouted "trash!" at Makintach.

Maradona's daughter Gianinna and his former partner Veronica Ojeda both cried after seeing the footage.

It is a violation of court rules for unauthorised filming to take place and the documentary was being filmed without the permission of the court.US District Judge Allison Burroughs indicated Thursday she would later issue a longer-term hold, known as a preliminary injunction, that would stand while the case played out in court. That development would allow international students and faculty to continue studying at Harvard during ongoing litigation.

The legal battle is being closely watched by other US universities and the thousands of foreigners who study at Harvard and around the country.There are two main questions at play in Harvard's lawsuit, lawyers say.

Do the government's reasons for targeting Harvard's participation in the student visa programme hold up under the law?And, are those reasons legitimate, or just a pretext for punishing Harvard for constitutionally protected speech the administration dislikes?