The crime of abuse and all sexual crimes against children are proven by the victim’s statements that are
supported by medical evidence that establishes assault against the victim’s sexual private parts, and, by the
presence of any marks caused by the assailant. They are also proven by the immediate informing of the
assault by the victim, as well as by the presence of the semen on both the victim’s and the assailant’s
body.
In this case, the victim affirmed that the assailant was her uncle, her father’s brother, and soon the
presence of both her father and her uncle Hanafi, and that the medical report ascertained the sexual assault
although her hymen was not removed. And the forensic lab affirmed the presence of semen on the child’s
clothes.
All that was supported by the actual presence of the accused at that very same time in the house and his
leaving in such a hurry and his being discomposed and uneasy as he heard the father’s voice talking to a
friend on the phone.
And what the plaintiff stated that he found the victim trying hurriedly to put on her clothes and that she
looked frightened and disturbed, making him feel that some unusual thing had happened. All that clearly
affirms that the assailant had sexually abused her.
As for the feud the accused had spoken of, it could not be termed as feud, but as mentioned by the lower
courts, it was a normal dispute that arose in most cases of inheritance and would easily be settled in
Sharia’a courts, whether those residing in the house liked it or not. And that it was not a plausible reason
for the plaintiff to thrust his daughter, her reputation and future, into this case, and, it is not a rational thing
for him to do it out of spite, putting his daughter through such a position, the negative consequences of
which will only be detrimental to his daughter and not his brother.
Regarding what was mentioned by the appellant about the testimony given by the witness Hanafi, we
reply that what Hanafi had concealed, depicted a desperate attempt on his side to distance his brother from
the accusation. However, his testimony was not the evidence that led to convicting the accused, but it was
in support of other evidences presented by the prosecution.
It is true, that the accused’s presence in the house did not constitute a crime - had it been in normal
circumstances, , but it was associated with fear, discomposure and hurriedness where a recent crime was
discovered, the results of which were witnessed by both the plaintiff and the witness Hanafi; the victim is
in a state of fright with her clothes wet with semen.
And, regarding the report issued by the criminal lab, there can be no appeal against it at this stage as it was
shown to the accused and he couldn’t reject it or appeal against it (see page 8 of the record) And the
appellant’s saying that the sample was sent a week later, was refuted by the detective who affirmed that it
was sent on the date it was taken, on the date of filing the charges.
Hence, I see that the evidence presented was enough to associate the accused with the crime,
unequivocally. And, as the victim was a child in the sense of the Juvenile Code and based on the facts
presented in the medical report and that of the forensic lab, it is established that the accused had
perpetrated a sexual act upon the body of the victim that did not amount to adultery. And as stated by the
Court of First Instance: had it not been for the arrival of the plaintiff at that very moment saving his
daughter, a rape crime could have happened, if he had been a bit later. Hence the conviction was valid
under Article 45/C of the Juvenile Code of 2010.
3