expresses the behaviour and act performed by the accused or the criminal behaviour. Therefore, the phrase “against the will or rape” is an expression that implies that the accused had indeed performed his sexual acts and behaviours under the method of “the physical or moral acts against the victim’s consent or approval”. Therefore, the phrase “against the will or rape” implies only the behaviour and the manner that the accused had followed in committing the crime “to take forcefully” or “harass’ or “threaten” or “terrorised” or “under threat” or “to tempt” or “material of moral temptation”… This behaviour is the one that led the judge to emphasis the penalty under paragraph (B) of article (45), although the act under article (45) paragraph (J) also includes “a physical or moral act”, but is of a lesser degree and did not on the face constitute the violation of the vagina of the victim or the removal of the vaginal hymen. The judge passed a lesser penalty (under paragraph (J) that corresponds to article (151) of the general criminal law. It is apparent for a reason the importance of distinguishing between adultery (with consent) under article (146) of the criminal law of 1991 between two adults, and both partners (an accused and an accomplice) to the crime. Therefore, the judge in order to protect the child in this crime holds that: a) Where the accused has committed a violation and caused harm on the child’s vagina or rectum, whatever the harm may be, whether it led to the removal of the hymen or not, it is sufficient that a harm has been caused on the location of this child, and has therefore warranted the penalty under paragraph (B) of article (45) (death or life imprisonment) b) The acts of the accused were sexual behaviour that did not violate the victim, or his acts were restricted to a sexual act of a lesser violating degree and caused (harm) or (cut to the vagina), and the judge had determined a lesser penalty which is imprisonment of no more that 15 years under paragraph (J) of article (45) of the law … Note that sexual harassment is a behaviour that is physical or moral, including verbal harassment on public streets. In a bid to protect the child from this heinous crime, it is clear that, going by article (149) (1) of the criminal code of 1991 and article (45) paragraph (B) of the 2010 Child Act, and because of the difficulty of establishing such offences within the surrounding circumstances, the judge in “the crime of forced physical or moral sexual act”, defined rape in an exhaustive manner to attain the objective of the law. The judge cited crimes in this article to protect the child: a) By virtue of article (149) of the criminal code of 1991, the crime is not pardonable; same as crimes highlighted in the Child Act, article 45, paragraphs (A-B-C) and punishable under article (86) of the Criminal code. b) However the judge in paragraph (3) of article (149) of the criminal code of 1991 considered that this crime might be an adulterous crime, if such a crime had been established by the regulations as stated in article (34) of the 1994 law of evidence. Once it is established that the perpetrator committed adultery with the victim by forcefully inserting the tip of his male reproductive member into the victim’s vagina, or the 5