(And we have certainly honored the children of Adam) and Almighty also says: (Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all of mankind") and says: (And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right). The penalty for the accused adulterer Is set at one hundred whip lashes and an exilation for a period of one year. Article 5/ of the Constitution prohbits us from violating the law. In conjunction, the record does not indicate whether the accused was married before his legal age. Neither the less, it is the legislator (Guardian) who choses the punishment for child abusers. The case was confirmed by the indictment (1) but refuted by the defense document (1), in which Doctor Tariq indicated that there was no trace of sexual intercourse in terms of scratches or sperm, and since there was a difference between the doctors, the doctor who wrote the report of the raped girl confirmed the rape The Prophet (PBUH) says: (Avoid Hudud in the presence of suspicion) and this is a general text in all Hudud. If we apply the text with each case of a single crime of Hudud, we apply the Hudud avoidance on the crime of theft and save the hand of the thief from amputation, which is part of the body. So, how to apply the avoidance of Hudud on a part of the body, and not apply this to the whole body and the provision on human soul that Allah warned not to kill, as we mentioned in the top of the memorandum (Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all of mankind"). What I want to say is that, the hand the of a thief shall not be cut off if there is suspicion of avoiding the Hudud. This means we cannot seek an opportunity to prevent the killing of the human soul, considering that human soul, which contains a body, apply to the Hudud text in reference to the fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence which is taught to us in Sharia. Conti. No. HC/RC/Execution/ 25/2017 / Second Session, p. (3) The Fundamentals of standard jurisprudence on why the human soul does not live has been firmly established by the Sudanese Judicial system. It also established that the evidences of the child, are accepted by the condamnation and incarceration of the accused. This Judiciary system is now a Sudanese custom. Another new custom is that the punishment of rape is beyond the violence and severity of Hudud and the evidence of proof required. Therefore, if the colleagues agree with me, I see that the conviction should not be amended by the evidence of the child, but I believe that we should link the conviction to the punishment. In other words, the conviction should be based on the evidence of the child as it was before. The penalty is to be imprisonment according to the period determined by the court. According to the legal evidence, there should at least be additional evidence for the evidence of the child. If the child's evidence is available and there is no other, in that case, the sentence shall be sentenced only to imprisonment. After reviewing several trials relating to rape, the court accused Mehdi Suleiman Ahmed, Review No. 317/2016, in which the victims father was informed that the accused had raped his nine year old daughter after the trial. After the trial, the accused was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The accused then filed for an appeal before the court of appeal of North Kordofan, where he was later acquitted and immedatly released based on his memorandum number. UC/KSC/CR/148/2016. The judgement from the court of appeal was revoked and the judgement from the court of cassation was restored. The house of first insurance also found that the court has the right to intervene according 2