versus M. A.A.M. and others No. 356/2007 - Judgments Magazine 2007 - Page 135 and afterwards. Such opinion was upheld in the precedent 16/2011 - Review 205/2011 which was in the view that the victim who became pregnant as a result of performing sexual intercourse is not a child in accordance with Criminal Act which is derived. This opinion contradicts with the opinion of lower courts in respect of this trial. The second opinion believes that the provision of Article (4) of Child Act determines childhood age. This does not contradict with Sharia. The most prominent precedent upholding such opinion is the trial No. 173/2014/Red Sea Circuit. Dr. Abbas Suleiman Al Wanhas lengthy discussed inpages 91-150of his book the child`s criminal responsibility, the trial proceedings from jurisprudence, legislative and judiciary point of view together with the two opinions and their support. Dr. Yousef Ishaq in his above mentioned reference upheld the first opinion (Page 17) whereas Dr. Baha Al Deen Abbas Mohamed supported the second opinion in his foregoing reference in pages (161-184) proceeding from the definition of legal ages in the interest of the child and the conventions ratified by Government of Sudan. Both opinions and judicial applications have their rule in legislation and a support from Sudan Transitional Constitution for 2005. Child Act was issued so as to be in consistence with conventions ratified by Government of Sudan. Article (27/3) of the Constitution provides that ((all rights and freedoms incorporated in the international agreements and conventions for human rights which are ratified by Republic of Sudan are an integral part of this document)) Further, the Chief Justice issued a Circular No. 2/2016 dated 28/02/2016 concerning the proceedings which the Child Court shall follow in the course of trial based on the provision of Article (65) of Child Act calling upon courts for the necessity that the transitional constitution, the relevant ratified international agreements and protocols, policies, decisions and directives which laid down by the national Council for Child Welfare, are to be taken as a guidance. I am therefore in the opinion that the available mechanisms for weighing either opinions is the transitional constitution for 2005 and Child Act itself which refers in Article (3) thereof that its provisions shall prevail over any other law which contradicts therewith to the extent which removes such contradiction in interpretation for the child`s interest and in the assumption that it is a subsequent Act the provisions of which prevail over Criminal Act which preceded it. Further it’s a specific Act excluded from any common law that is the Criminal At as contained in Article (6) Paras (3) & (4) of Law of interpretation of Common Laws and Provisions for 1974. So, I can see no support to the attorney`s opinion that is based on the Circular 106/1984 dated 23/11/1984 after the Criminal Act has included in the definition of the adult which nullified by Child Act for 2010. We therefore uphold the second opinion based on this philosophy.