On the above, ON THE FORM Whereas the accused appeared and asserted his means of defense; That it befits to rule on the basis of counter-argumentation; ON THE MERIT On the public action Whereas the accused refutes the facts charged to him; That, however, it is a question of vain denials which cannot prosper; That in fact, it is common ground that the victim's statements regarding the sexual act were corroborated by the doctor's findings in his medical certificate; That it is also common ground that one of the circumstances of the commission of the facts described by the girl was also confirmed by the niece of the accused himself; That it follows that the victim's words are so coherent and so correct that the name of the perpetrator of the said facts cannot be an error or a lie, That more-so, when the accused was pinpointed, he first agreed to pay the girl's medical bills before reversing his decision; That this attitude of the accused inevitably translates into the situation of an individual seeking at first glance an amicable settlement for his criminal acts before finally opting to tell lies as a defense; That he infers from the above that there is no shadow of any doubt that he committed a sexual offence on a minor of ten (10) years; That thus, the facts brought to his charge are established; That there is therefore reason to find him guilty and to apply the criminal law on him; On the civil action Whereas at the bar of the court, Ms. SM declared that she was acting as a civil party on behalf of her younger sister and requested the court to order the accused to pay her the sum of sixty thousand francs (60,000 francs) as damages; That this constitution of civil party is regular in form; That it should be declared admissible; That on the merit, it is justified; That it is appropriate to declare that it is well founded and to condemn the accused to pay her the above-mentioned amount as damages; 3