and requires care and foresight in investigation and determination since it involves the right of the minor, and he, the minor has the right of protection because guardianship is a responsibility that takes into account the consideration of three parties, the rights of the minor, the rights of guardianship and the rights of the parent. Should these three rights be reconciled then that should be the course to follow, but should they conflict then the right of the minor shall prevail since the purpose of guardianship is to benefit the minor in the first place, as is dictated and proven by the rulings of the National Supreme Court the Cassation Department and where there is no defect or failure in the course of the investigation leading to the elevation of the minor or causes him harm, which is in violation of the law then there is no room for the intervention of the Court of Cassation, which is a court specialized in overseeing the integrity and validity of the application of the law and not a court to decide on disputes among the parties, therefore it should be in favor of the respondent and the later, i.e. the respondent according to the consensus of the jurists/scholars has priority in raising the minor so long as the conditions of the law have been met, since the appeal petition are based on the aforementioned, in this regard is still under deliberation and repeating the facts at this stage of litigation does not lead to any merits, so long as the judgement of the concerned Court is valid which we have been pointed to earlier, therefore, and for these reasons we agree on the validity of appealed judgment and reject the appeal, and Allah it is whose help is to be sought in this matter, and to the decision of the honorable members of the bench. (Signature) Dr. Sitanna Abdul Jaleel Mohammed Supreme Court’s Judge 21/02/2016 Since it is determined in the rulings of this court that the essence of people is good, and whoever claims otherwise, bares alone the burden to proof without being compelled to go under oath in this instance, where the appellant failure to present prove of his claim. And that negligence leading to dropping the right of guardianship is what leads to the loss of the minor. The court should not base its judgment on any reason that could not be drawn from the events that the evidence has proved. For all that, and since it is proven through the study of the documents that the two parties agree that the girl, the subject of the lawsuit is still in the age that requires guardianship of a female and that she, did not exceed the age of three years of age, and that the appellant failed to prove his claim of the respondent’s negligence to a degree leading to dropping her custody of her aforementioned daughter. Since the court's finding and deliberation of the presented evidence by the appellant in this regard were palatable, the intervention of the Appeal Court to weigh the evidence is justifiable and it ruled to revoke the judgement of the Trial Court and issued a new sentence that rejects the lawsuit in accordance with the law and that this ruling should be supported. And whereas the appeal is unfounded, no doubts remain as to its invalidity and rejection. Therefore, I agree with what the honorable judge Dr. Sitanna Abdul Jaleel Mohammed has established and concluded, and our judgment is to reject the appeal in question. (Signature) Al-Tayeb Abdul Ghafoor Abdul Wahab Supreme Court’s Judge 10/03/2016 (Signature) Fadia Abdulgadir Supreme Court’s Judge