The Court argues that, counter to the accused's grounds, the 1st Judge properly justified the disqualification of the rape of child offense in that of indecent assault being awarded to the accused, based on the case's investigation, namely on the statements made by the one called Didienne. As to the second part of the grounds, the Court notes that the accused reproaches the first Judge by not having drawn the consequences of the existing contradictions in the Prosecution's, the victim's and the witnesses' statements, not having raised said contradictions himself; thus this part of the grounds is unfounded. Questioned before the Court about the facts held against him, the accused denied them. He declared that this was a set-up by the girl's mother that wanted at all cost to make him accept to pay 2000$ for an act that he did not commit. He maintained that he was exiting a room in the construction site's house when he ran into the little girl Kisanga Ida in the hallway of said house. That she had asked for money to buy a donut or some sugar cane but that he said he didn't have it. He concludes that it was under these circumstances that Didienne found them, the little girl being 25 to 30 cm from him; The Court notes however that the accused recognized being found on Sunday, the 30 th October 2011 in the construction site's house with the little girl KISANGA IDA without the presence of a third party. It raises the fact that during her interrogation by the Prosecutor, the little girl victim KISANGA IDA declared that on Sunday the 3oth October 2011, day of the events, the accused was with her little sister Esta that he sent her to call. That once she presented herself, the accused sent her to call her maternal aunt with whom the latter talked to for some time,. That when she left and returned home, the accused asked her to join him in the construction site nearby. That as soon as she approached the site, the accused put his hand on her mouth, carried her to the inside, undressed her, undressed himself and lied on top of her. She continues by saying that it was at this moment that Didienne appeared and started screaming, that she took this opportunity to escape. On her part, Didienne KERWISHA declared before the Prosecutor that she surprised the accused, pants down to his knees; a position that certainly does not imply the beginning a prayer before a girl. Additionally, she notes that the victim, an 8-year old girl, the age of complete innocence, could not imagine the facts being held against the accused nor recount them in a coherent fashion at every stage of the interrogation in the event that they were dictated to her by her mother, as was maintained by the accused; The Prosecution indicted and prosecuted for having committed rape of a child, whether through violence or serious threat or by restraint or by way of a third party, whether by surprise, psychological pressure, whether in a coercive environment, whether abusing a child that, because of an illness, altered or lack of consciousness, by introducing his sexual organ, even superficially, in a child's; facts ruled and punishable by articles 170 and 171 of law number 009/001 of 10th January 2009 regarding the protection of children. But the 1 st Judge was wrong in disqualifying this ruling to one of indecent assault instead of attempted rape of a child. In fact, in the terms of article 4 of the Penal Code, there is a punishable attempt once the resolve to commit the offense has been manifested by visible acts that mark the beginning of the enactment of the offense and that have not been suspended or had an effect by way of circumstances other than the perpetrator's will;