memorandum and in accordance to an appeal presented to the supreme court her judgment number (155/2016) dated 3/8/2016 mentioned on the forefront of the memorandum and the documents were returned to the court of the first instance and a session dated 14/5/2017 was scheduled to execute the instructions of the supreme court. This and the reasons for review can be summarized in the error of the supreme court in following the doctrine of the Sharia’a Laws and heavenly justice and the law in the following points: 1. The crime of rape (befalls) people whose criminal responsibilities are fulfilled in accordance with the Sharia’a laws 2. Crime of rape is established if one of the partners refuses to be engaged in the act 3. The victim is considered an adult according to article (3) of the criminal act for the year 1991 and no one shall be spoken to but the adult and points out to some of the references and judicial cases and states that the natural course of adulthood is established by the emergence of visible evidence after completion of 15 years of age and thus, if these are available then the criminal liability should be established against the adult. And since the victim is not a minor but an adult it is requested that indictment and the penalty be revoked on the grounds that this case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Child Court and to reject the accusation and to immediately release the accused under custody and to refer the case to the criminal court. And therefore, the reviewed against responded by requesting that the review application be rejected for that the Child court is indeed in charge of the case and did not err in the Sharia’ laws nor in the laws of the land. In subject as after reviewing the proceeds of the national supreme court, the division of red sea and kassallah it is clear that the judgment of the appeal court under number 403/2016 dated 26/6/2016 has revoked the judgment of the court of the first instance and returned the documents to the same to follow the procedures by requisitioning and re-examining the physician author of the report, to clarify if the tear is of an old origin or a recent one, and whether a sexual intercourse for a single time is sufficient to case the same, all of which should be detailed so the view shall be complete. Most opinions of the division members of the supreme court are of the opinion of revoking the judgment of the appeal court and retaining the judgment of the court of the first instance, but I personally agree with what my third colleague, the Honourable Mr. Al Alim Abdul Raouf Hassab Allah Malsi said, that is the court of the first instance failed to question the physician in more details as the appeal; court has requested and therefore, no man should be indicted if the court is not conclusively satisfied that the person had indeed committed the act in question, and therefore, the judgment of the supreme court has violated the Sharia Laws and the laws of the land by failing to establish beyond a reasonable doubt and I am of the opinion that this shall be sufficient grounds not to discuss the review memorandum in details and to return the court’s documents to the court of the first instance to follow the instructions of the memorandum of the appeal court and in accordance with the third opinion of the judgment of the supreme court. As was forwarded by the result of the court of the first instance as different therefore, I am of the opinion, should my esteemed colleagues of the division consent to reject the judgment