Pictures and pictures of the sit-in of the leadership stirred up the grief of the Sudanese, and upset the comrades and families of the victims of the massacre, whose painful details go to forty in the morning.
Just before the incident of the sit-in of the rebels in front of the army headquarters in Khartoum, the authorities of the Transitional Military Council deliberately absent the media from the field of sit-in, but cameras of activists and amateur and perhaps others was watching some of what happened that morning.
Although the monitoring was through the surveillance of certain cameras, the record of tragic scenes shocked many.
The greatest shock was to those who lived on the 28th of Ramadan when an armed force broke into the field in the form of rapid support forces.
"Those who are exposed to such an event are suffering from mental disorders," said Dr. Rehab Al-Majar, a trauma specialist who continues to be a doctor in two cases of trauma to two girls who were in the field during those "difficult hours." Some of those injured in the massacre complain.
The trauma is diagnosed as a "post-traumatic stress disorder" with symptoms that are easy to observe, such as difficulty sleeping or trying to avoid sleeping at night for fear of recurring nightmares related to the accident and its memories.
Tamer Mohammed Al-Hassan, a neurologist and psychologist, points out that the restoration of Internet service "was associated with terrible pains after the publication of many videos that confounded their makers in documenting the worst and worst ways to deal with citizens and unarmed citizens." She said that these images and sections " Psychological violence in the hearts of those who saw those scenes of barbarism because of excessive cruelty and terrible violence. "
"Some of those who were exposed to these scenes were depressed and frustrated, especially those who were exposed to the videos in the background with voices of distress for girls asking for help while they were raped," she said.
According to a legal expert, the video footage does not constitute complete evidence. It can be exposed to its contents, but it supports the charge against the perpetrators when it is reinforced by other evidence or confirmed by the competent authorities.
Political activist Mohammed Sawyet said that filming the scenes of the sit-in "was intended to break the spirit of the revolutionaries and humiliate and humiliate them."
"He was trying to condemn the Janjaweed as the only ones who killed the rebels," he said.
From Muhammad's perspective, "the analysis of the scenes confirms that some of the killers were wearing Janjawid uniforms, in a clear breach of them as an armed group," but that penetration - as he put it - "does not relieve quick support from the responsibility that lies primarily with the Transitional Military Council."
The journalist Ibrahim Mustafa said that the suffering of those who watched the video to break the sit-in was no less than the suffering of those who experienced the horrors of the event in the field that morning.
In this regard, Mustafa conveys the comments of some of those who have been exposed to these materials through media, such as saying "they were unable to complete watching the footage because of its heartbreaking atrocities".
He points out that some activists broadcast videos and audio testimonies of some witnesses immediately after the sit-in. "But what was published after the return of the Internet service to the country was more horrifying than what most Sudanese saw."
"The publication of these horrific sections of the evacuation of the field will cast a negative shadow over the modest confidence that the military council has begun to acquire after agreeing with the forces of freedom and change to share power," Mustafa said.
On the impact of these clips on the building of confidence between the military and the forces of freedom and change, writer Ammar Mohammed Adam of Al Jazeera Net "The aim of the massacre of the leadership and the transmission of images at this stage is the failure of the power-sharing agreement between the military and civilians."
Adam points to other observations about the incident by saying that "one of the scenes of those video scenes was trying to keep the charge away from him." In his view, the photographer showed that the cameraman was "quietly portraying the atrocities as if he were authorized to do so."
"Maybe the shooting was through fixed cameras, which means that the photographer has to know the timing of the sit-in."
Adam concludes his observations by saying that "the observer of these atrocities wanted to beat a certain area, the forces of rapid support and hide other involved."
From his point of view, the body capable of such an act "is only counterrevolutionary forces with the potential."
Adam wonders why the names of the victims are not disclosed. Khartoum, an open and connected society, described it as "unimaginable" in the number of media outlets.
For all this, Adam considers the sit-in and subsequent bloody incidents "a mystery that continues to haunt the Sudanese - especially the victims' families - for many years."