She declared that when she arrived at the shop, she found her
daughter in the shopkeeper's room, and the daughter asked her with
an air of fear in her voice not to enter the room because she was
naked;
Surprised by this reaction, she asked Mr. S if her daughter had gone
to the toilet, but he gave no explanation;
She added that when questioned, the girl explained to her that after asking
her to undress, M.S had rubbed his penis against her sex organ, and
specified that it was not the first time;
After checking and having noted seminal fluid on the sex organ of the girl,
she immediately cleaned it and asked for explanations from Mr. S who
however denied the said facts;
At his request, she continued, they went to the hospital where after
consultation, the gynecologist confirmed that there had been no penetration
and that the hymen was intact, but reproached her for having cleaned up
the seminal fluid;
Heard in the presence of his mother, D.M confirmed her statements and
specified that MS wore on the day of the acts a little red underwear with
"stripes";
When taken in for questioning, MS was placed at the disposal of the
prosecution;
Questioned on the said facts, the respondent denied them completely;
He maintained that while he was serving customers, the girl had entered
his room next to the store, taken his cell phone there, and manipulated it to
watch the pornographic video therein;
According to him, the girl asked him to do the same to her as in the video,
but that he refused by telling her that she was still small for that;
He claimed that he then seized the cell phone from her and deleted the
video;
Finally, he maintained that the little girl undressed herself alone;
Whereas when questioned, Z.B declared that she was acting as a civil
party and claimed the sum of 300,000 F for damages;
2