equivalent of such, or through four rightful witnesses, as is included in paragraph (3), the judge stated in his ruling as: (Unless the rape constitutes adultery which is penalized by death) And the death meant in adultery is “death by stoning” according to article 146 (1) of the criminal law of 1991 with consideration of matrimony permissible by such a law. The “death penalty” in the case of paragraph (B) of article (45) of the child act of 2010 had been the subject of debates on interpretation that led to two contrasting points of views, which we shall include here in details as: The first Opinion: We see the act of adultery, where the perpetrator has committed adultery against the little child, considered as an act of aggression, which has to be proved in accordance with article (34) of the law of evidence of 1994 (paragraph (3) of article (149) of the criminal law of 1991). Article (45) B of the child act considers it an act of torture, unless the same incriminating Sharia evidence have been established in the crime (rape of a child). By this point of view, no law or law related to marginal criminality evokes indirect evidence, and as long as adultery is the act of penetration into the vagina of the victim, even if established by proofs, without legal evidence, the offence does not constitute adultery. Even if the declarations of the victim and the medical reports confirm penetration, the act in question constitutes the crime of sexual abuse referred to in article (45) paragraph (B) of the child code, which is punishable under article (86) paragraph (Z). The Second Opinion: The legislator of the 2010 child act had intended to put in a place a special criminal code (a law addressing serious crimes and tacit offences), thereby allowing for proof of torture and related punishment that could get up to capital punishment and life imprisonment, considering all means of proving the testimony or the circumstantial evidence according to the 1994 law of evidence. Thus, if the perpetrator has traumatized the vagina of the victim using his masculine sex organ or nay other means, it is considered a sexual offence and an harm to the vagina, even if it does not result in damage of the hymen. It is permissible to accept here the element of proof and the circumstances of the violation of the member of the religion of the ethnic group for the crime of torture committed under section 45 / B of the Child Act of 2010, punishable by capital punishment or life imprisonment, as a crime of torture, under section 86/W of the Act. Thus, this opinion suggests that, in case the legislator in the 2010 Child Act, willfully wanted to protect innocent children from aggressions that are likely to cause prejudice to a girl (at all levels of harm in the body of the girl or boy, and makes this crime an act of torture under the Child Act). The victim's statements must be accepted with the medical report evidence and circumstances, where the court is satisfied that it is sufficient to prove that the accused traumatized the vagina of the victim or the male organ of the boy through a sexual act. This must be punished under section 45 / B of the 2010 Child Act, taking into account the crime of sodomy inscribed in the Child Act. If the legal proof establishes the 6