In the case: Government of Sudan versus Abdullah Abu Zaid and others 108/2011 The Supreme Court adjudicated that whoever is below the age of 18 years may not be sentenced to imprisonment because, in accordance with Article (4) of Child Act every person below 18 years of age is regarded as a child and therefore the Child Court shall have the jurisdiction. In the case: Government of Sudan versus Mujahid Abdullah Adam and another 656/2011/Review/205/2011 It has been provided in the words of the Supreme Court, that the prescribed arrangement for the child shall be distinguished in accordance with the Child Act and not the Criminal Act. The Constitutional Court, with respect of the case: Government of Sudan versus Hassan Osman Grad 81/2006 Decided to cancel the death penalty issued against the accused because he is below 18 years of his age. The court was also ordered to send the papers to the Chief Justice and to taken back to the trial court for issuing the appropriate penalty. The judicial precedents referred to by my colleagues and other precedents have embraced Article (3) of Criminal Act for 1991 as a criterion for the criminal responsibility of the child which has been discussed by the judicial precedent: Government of Sudan versus A. A. M. A. 1 199/2014/Judicial Magazine/2015 page 48, and reached in the summary of its reasoning to a rule stating that (Article (4) of The Child Act does not violate the constitution or Sharia since it has determined the age of the adult young under a provision of a conclusive evidence, has not exceeded 18 years of age, even though he has not attained adulthood without depending on (or lack of) the appearance of the adulthood signs. This also defines an adult as whoever is above the age of 18 years/ In consideration of the premises, it is evident that The Child Act is a specific law that does not rely upon adulthood and its criterion of the age. So, whoever has not exceeded 18 years of his life is regarded as a child even though he is an adult. It has been established in the papers of this criminal case that the age of the victim is 16 years old, and the 2nd accused was also 16 years old. The victim is therefore regarded as a child even though she reaches the adulthood stage. The 2nd accused is also considered to be a child even though he attains the adulthood stage. The 1st convict is deemed to be an adult because he exceeded 18 years, and seeing that he was 19 years old. Since it is established that the 1st convict and the 2nd accused have performed complete sexual intercourse with the victim, Article (45/b) of Child Act for 2010 shall be applicable to them and the criminal defence of consent is insignificant because the victim`s consent is not reliable since she is a child and therefore the judgment brought forward before us for upholding is completely in conformity and consistence with the provisions of Child Act for 2010 and as such it should have to be upheld entirely.