(2)
(3)
(4)
Also, inferring from other legal stipulations, we find that the crime of obscenity) is
mentioned by the legislator in a different sense in Article (156) of the Criminal Code of 1991
and bears the same (intent of obscenity and sexual harassment) as it reads;
(He who ever seduces a person or takes him/her or helps in taking him/her or leading him or
hiring him to commit the crime of adultery, sodomy, obscene acts of impropriety or that
breach public morals (etc.).) And, the context shows that the mere act of seduction or
helping, are contained in the definition of (Sexual harassment and act) against another even if
the assailant does not directly or physically perform an act of sex. And here I recall
proceedings of a case that I deliberated in the 70s, where the decision by the court of appeal
was (flirting or sweet words even by winking or whistling that indicate harassment, or
showing of sexual organs, in whichever manner, are considered as sexual harassment and a
conduct of sex that contradicts public order and morals.
Hence; all these acts are not far from being sexual harassment and sexual behavior.
In reference to Article (3) interpretation, of the Criminal Code of 1991, the crime (be it
sexual harassment or behavior) cannot be justifiable by the consent of the victim or if it
happens against the consent of the victim, defined by the legislator as (unjustifiable) if it was
given by;
a/ someone under coercion or by mistakenly understanding the facts, if the assailant was
aware that a victim’s consent was a result of his coercion.
b/ If the consent was given by someone who is underage, or by someone who is not aware of
the gravity of what he consented to, either due to mental or psychological instability.
4- As for the definition of the word (intent) in the Criminal Code, it means;
(that an assailant causes or leaves a result intentionally using the means that leads to that
result, or he knows when he uses this means that it will cause such an effect or has a clue that
such means will leave the effect he intended.)
Notably, the legislator generalized the word (means) in the definition so as to include all means;
physical or moral, and to affirm that legislative intent by generalizing the word (means) he defined the
word(result) that ensues as; ( a likely to occur result of such means or that the means used will definitely
lead to the occurrence of this result.)
Hence, the phrase (harassment or behavior) includes in a general sense;
a/ every behavior, physical or moral act by the assailant against the victim to cause the result he
intended, and which constitutes a crime.
b/ an act of coercion or moral terrorizing or threatening to cause someone to accept an act or refrain
from doing it.
c/ an act or seductive behavior and assisting to achieve the result or effect.
d/ absence of consent is a proof of the incorrectness of the act or behavior because it contradicts public
order and morals.