It follows from the elements on file that the accused NZALAKANDA Audrien, on an uncertain date but during the year of 2008, taught the victim MUTUTSHILA, student in the 3 rd primary year at the Lycée BOSANGANI, took the latter to a place designated by himself as KINTAMBO. There, he gave her Coca-Cola and after having drunk this laced Coca, the student MUTUTSHILA feel into a deep sleep. The teacher NZALAKANDA took the opportunity to rape her. As the victim woke up, she noticed that her underwear was bloody. According to her, the teacher NZALAKANDA told her that she would die if she revealed these events; On the 9th February 2009, when the victim MUTUTSHILA was in the fourth primary year in the same Lycée BOSANGANI, the accused NZALAKANDA called her at the end of class, taking her to the third primary year's classroom. There, he offered her a Coca-Cola, the victim falling in a deep sleep and the teacher taking the opportunity to rape her. When the victim woke up, she noticed that her underwear laid on the ground. According to the victim, the accused NZALAKANDA raped her several times using the same modus operandis; On the same say, the victim MUTUTSHILA arrived home late and with her clothes dirty, and that is when the plaintiff Marie KAJ engaged her and demanded that she tell the truth. After several hesitations, the victim MUTUTSHILA ended up by telling the truth and revealed to the plaintiff that she had been raped by the teacher NZALAKANDA Audrien. The plaintiff called her nurse friend who confirmed the rape after a medical examination of the victim. She also called Dr. KITENGE and the mother Vicky who both confirmed the rape committed upon her daughter by a man; Based on all these testimonies, Madame Marie KAJ was convinced that the accused NZALAKANDA had raped her girl. Thus, she filed a complaint against him before the Rapid Intervention Police (PIR); A medical report by the forensic doctor, dated 20 th February 2009, was established and stated that the vulva of the victim was binding, her hymen ripped apart and scarred. Consequently, the defloration was confirmed. Questioned at length about the facts awarded to him, the accused NZALAKANDA did not admit to them, he suggested that the matter is a conspiracy organized to cause him harm. He maintained that the victim was manipulated by people wanting to get revenge; the present amendment noted that there is an aspect of doubt that benefits him because the victim did not determine neither the date nor the period in which the events took place. He noted that the medical report was not official; For the accused NZALAKANDA, there is also doubt that benefits him in that the plaintiff Marie KAJ did not follow the evolution of the victim MUTUTSHILA's situation at the Lycée BOSANGANI. The accused adds that the testimony of a certain BIJOU were not heard in order to clarify the Court's religion; Due to all these reasons, the accused NZALAKANDA asked the Court to simply acquit him by virtue of the adage “in dubio pro reo”; The plaintiff finds that the facts awarded to the accused NZALAKANDA are established; She asks the Court to sentence the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay her the equivalent in Congolese Francs to 500.000 USD, based on article 260 paragraph 3 of the Civil Code Third Book, because at the time of the events the civil servant in question was at the Republic's service;