Abdul Rahman Mohamed Omer. The application was admitted by the authorized Chief Chancellor and the other party was notified to reply. The advocate/ Ibrahim Musa Mohamed Salih filed the enclosed reply on behalf of the victim, therefore, we detail in the application in subject. Applicant denounced to the judgment subject of revision, as being contrary to Sharia Law’s principles and contrary to law, in terms of interpretation and application, for the following reasons: 1- The judgment subject of revision is contrary to section (4) of the Child Act 2010, because the convicted person does not exceed 18 years, as stated in exhibit 2 of the accusation list of exhibits, which is an official document. 2- The judgment subject of revision is contrary to Sharia and law when concluding that, the sharia evidence that the convicted has entered his penis in the victim’s vagina is not necessary. 3- The judgment subject of revision, depended on exhibit 1 of the accusation list of exhibits, as an official document, which is expressly contrary to sections {40& 41} of the Evidence Act of the year 1994, because, the exhibit is not an official document, because it is issued by a medical assistant and not a doctor. 4- The victim did not bring the clothes she was wearing during the incident and that raises a doubt which shall be interpreted to the favor of accused. 5- According to section 149 of the Penal Code of the year 1991, whoever practices sex or homosexuality with another person without his consent is deemed to have committed rape. Accordingly; the offence of Zinna (adultery), as provided for in section (62) of the Evidence Act 1994, must be proved first. Since the accusation failed to prove the Zinna (adultery) offence, then conviction is irrelevant based on absence of evidence. 6- Accused has not been subjected to parade to be identified. 7- The compensation decision was issued contrary to section (204/c/d) of the Criminal Procedures Act 1991. The reply to review application is summed up as follows: 1- The accusation document that had stated the convicted age is eighteen years, did not mention that the convicted age is below eighteen, yet, he is an adult to whom the full criminal liability shall apply. 2- The medical assistant, who prepared the medical report was heard before the Court, about his report. 3- The compensation decision was issued in accordance with section 86/# of the Child Act 2010.