(Reversing the acknowledgment of border crimes is a suspicion, makes recognition unambiguous evidence, and certainly this is not a border crime, as well as that the convicts failed to prove their pushing related to coercion or beatings which lead them to recognition, and it well known that the prove in criminal materials rely upon sustain evidences. And the mentioned evidences lead to criminalize the convicts and its way over the suspicion. And statement proves that the culprits stick together to commit the crime, so that we must add article"1”. of criminal law. If the looting crime there is no need to prove stealing crime, Where the crime of looting implies the stealing and using the criminal power during the process or at escaping, and that doesn't mean denouncing the culprit by stealing and looting. Therefore, eliminate the complaint of stealing and keeping the complaint of looting. With regard of raping crime, it proved that the first, second, fourth, and sixth culprits caught the victim till the crime has done, so that they made easy for crime to committed. Punishment is appropriate for the offense committed, as the crime was committed in a brutal manner, after it has been proven that the convicts of the gangs of fugitives ... must be deterred to be a As the crime was committed in a brutal manner, after it has been proven that the convicts of the fugitives gangs, must be deterred to be exhortation. And with regard of appeal filed by the victim which ab out compensation and the damage of raping, in this we agree with lawyer in first-degree court with not judging by compensation, regardless the statement, that the cause of compensation in criminal court, that belongs to criminal court, and as long as has been separated in the cause, there's no way except to filed a cause in front of special civil court. That because she has original right, and with regard of compensation it came appropriately with the damage. Accordingly: I see confirmation of denunciation, except the denunciation of articles "174" of criminal law, and confirm the punishment, and the way of application, and compensation, and the way of punishment applying, and confiscation. And after the right of my two moralist colleagues Signature of: Osama Ali Osama Seal of: The president of appeal court Omdurman 26/12/2012 The evidence presented in the case clearly indicates that the convicted were committed the crime, that described in article"174" of criminal law (stealing), Therefore the culprits must be denounced accordingly, where there is no denouncing under article "175" of law. That the legislator considered the aggravating circumstance of the situation of using power is an independent offense under article 175 of the law. And any other saying except that, leads to unreasonable results in addition to it's illegal, and that let him escape from article 174 which is original of procedures. And if put into consideration that the crime under"171""174" the penalty is Hand cutting or imprisonment up to seven years, the sufficiency of the offender to a penalty of up to three years only this(reward)for convicted for using force or threat when stealing, and I do not think this is the desired of founder of legislation, cause the looting is too dangerous for both people and money. And the supreme court decided the same outcome, at the previous number M A / F G/274/2011 (unpublished)which decided (what is coming in article175 of Criminal law of 1991Is to tighten the penalty for those who use criminal force, Stalk with otherwise makes us drop marginal theft when of proven criminal theft, at the time we Had to apply marginal penalty.... And well done when the court judged by applying both articles"74""75”). And that accordant what the court decided with what the two Articles (12/74/75) denounced firstly. The sanctions were watered down, despite the obvious risk of convicts, according to the data disclosed about their situation near to criminal organization which described in article 65 of