The defence lawyer on Tuesday raised serious question marks over the key DNA evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial of missing journalist Ahmed Rilwan.
The Maldives Independent reporter Rilwan went missing nearly four years ago and his disappearance remains arguably the biggest unsolved mystery in the archipelago.
Prosecutors have charged two men - Ahmed Aalif Rauf and Mohamed Nooraddeen with terrorism. Both however, had denied the charges.
Investigators believe that Rilwan had been forced into a red car owned by Aalif where the victim's DNA had been found which had been matched to Rilwan's mother.
But in order to tie the evidence to Rilwan, prosecutors needed to prove that none of his immediate family members had been inside the car.
Police had carried out a mitochondrial DNA test of one of the five hairs found in the car.
A mitochondrial DNA test traces a person's matrilineal or mother-line ancestry using the DNA in his or her mitochondria which is passed down by the mother unchanged, to all her children, both male and female.
The nature of the DNA test meant there was no conclusive way to prove that the hair had belonged to the victim as the particular DNA strand would be present in any of her children.
Rilwan's four sisters and three brothers along with his mother had testified that they had never been inside the car. However, during their testimonies, it emerged that Rilwan had a fourth brother who was living in Malaysia.
During the last hearing, the court had heard Moosa Rilwan's testimony who was in Maldives embassy in Malaysia in the presence of an embassy official.
When prosecutors showed a picture of the red car linked to the suspects, Moosa denied recognizing or ever getting into the car.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the prosecution presented the closing argument saying that the DNA evidence along with the witness testimonies prove that none of the victim's immediate family members had been inside the car used in the abduction.
The defence however, countered by pointing out that the prosecution witness testimonies do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the hair found inside the car belonged to Rilwan. According to the prosecution's DNA expert, the hair could belong to the children of any of Rilwan's maternal sisters.
The prosecution also had not produced a single piece of evidence to tie the car to the defendants, the defence argued.
The defence told the court that the prosecution along with the investigators had 'mishandled' the evidence to cover up Rilwan's disappearance and pin the crime on the defendants.
Both Aalif Rauf and Nooraddeen have been previously apprehended on suspicions of links to the case. However they were released back then, when summoned to court for remand extension.
The court is now expected to deliver a verdict on the case which must be within 10 days according to new regulations.
