the month of July 2017 before DJINEKAMA Lucie's contract was renewed for the 2017- 2018 school year; that she maintains that the said renewal was conditioned by these sexual relations, which the accused refutes; that it is also established that the accused refused to renew DJINEKAMA Lucie’s contract for the 2018-2019 school year; that he explains the non-renewal by the unjustified lateness and absences as well as the indecent dressing of D.L; that, however, she claims that it is because this time, she refused to have sexual relations with the accused that he dismissed her; Whereas it is clear that the accused did not inform D.L of the criterion of non-renewal of her contract at the time of her recruitment; that it is at the end of each school year that he unilaterally decides to renew or not the contracts, casting doubt on the real motives for non-renewal of contracts of non-permanent teachers; that this is all the more true since it emerges from the proceedings that when the accused assembled the three non-permanent teachers at the time, namely D.L, BADINI Mariam and PARE Henry Bonaventure, he informed them that he is not certain that their contracts would be renewed, before informing PARE Henry Bonaventure later that his message was addressed only to the ladies; Whereas D.L alleges that she was molested by the defendant when she went to his office to get her preparation notebook signed; that she also claims that he did not often answer her greetings because she refused his advances; that, however, examination at the bar revealed that although she lived opposite the SOS Enfants School, D.L freely chose to have her daily lunch in the office and with the accused; that she rested there while waiting for classes to resume; that, moreover, not only did she cook at home and bring the meal to the school for the accused but also invited him to eat at her house; that, moreover, she regularly did sports with him; Finally, whereas all the witnesses having been heard declared that they had never seen or heard, from the accused, any behaviour or words of a sexual nature made against D.L; that the investigation on the stand also did not establish that the defendant repeatedly imposed on the victim, in a sexual manner, words or behaviour with sexual connotations or that he used serious pressure in order to obtain sexual relations with her; That in view of the way in which the accused renewed the contracts of the non-permanent teachers and the extraprofessional relations between D.L and the accused, there is doubt as to whether he committed the acts of sexual harassment attributed to him; that by virtue of the principle according to which doubt benefits the accused, P.S.M should be acquitted of the prosecution charges; 7 Scanned with CamScanner