the article power; this is because the accused were not caught, as it was stated in the Court of First Instance, in an indecent position; and there was no evidence to prove that the accused was inside First Accused Holeya’s house.The witnesses alleged that the Second Accused fled the house in a vest and shorts, but no clothes were found in the house of the First Accused, Holeya. Also, it wasn’t proved that the Second Accused, when he was arrested, was wearing a vest and shorts or barefooted, as alleged by the witnesses. It is obvious that the charges were based on doubts and suspicions about the conduct of the Accused Women. If the Accused had actually been in Holeya’s house, how come he could escape from three witnesses? Instead, it was indeed established that the Accused was present at the house of defense witnesses (1) and (2) doing some work. And, in the absence of any evidence that connects the Accused Persons to the crime, I see that the decision by the Court of First Instance, to acquit the two accused persons conforms with correct letter of the law, which prompt me to dismiss the request. And if my colleagues agree, I decide: 1- Rejection of the Request 2- Presenter to be Notified. Dalya Basheer Siraj Supreme Court Justice 12/1/2017 Second opinion: I agree Abdulkarim Ahmed Jofoun Supreme Court Justice 17/1/2017 3