According to a news item, Babar Awan submitted five points related to the reopening of Bhutto's reference in the Supreme Court. Unless I am absolutely wrong, I see no difference between the sentences inscribed under point 1 and point 5.
Point 1 states "Wasn't Bhutto's trial violation of basic human rights?"
Point 5 states "Wasn't Bhutto's trial in contradiction of basic rights?"
If by repeating sentences which carry identical meaning, Babar Awan wants to play to the galleries, he will be successful, but if he plans to impress the legal minds listening to his arguments than he should think twice; because it will fall on deaf ears.