accused being alone without any other person, according to the circumstances of the offence, be blamed on the accused? Under such circumstances, in our opinion that there are no arguments regarding the following facts: a) The medical report exhibit (1) supports that the hymen had been removed b) The medical report does not conclusively affirm that such damage (hymen) had been “recently” removed or it was an “old” removal, as the report failed to mention any markings on the vagina such as redness or cuts of any other evidence (recent), since the medical examination was conducted on the same day of the incident and not later from the incident. c) The medical report affirms the existence of external semen outside the vagina and on the clothes of the victim and the accused that had been taken (after the incident). Therefore, all these facts affirm to external sexual intercourse on the body of the victim, but do not conclusively affirm that “the behaviour of the accused is what led to the vaginal or hymen tear” d) Based on the evidence at hand, it is a clear fact that the vaginal hymen had been removed, and also that the accused had performed sexual acts on the body of the victim, but it is not conclusively established that “the acts and behaviour of the accused, whatever these sexual acts and behaviours may be, are the ones that led to the removal of the vaginal hymen”. The location of the hymen is in the interior of the vagina, and the medical report does not affirm that the removal of the vagina hymen has been caused by “penetration of any kind”. If the medical report pointed out any related marks to the removal of the vaginal hymen such as redness of the organ or tear or local cuts and bruises, then the description of the act would have changed dramatically and would have been marked as evidence that the accused alone is the one who violated the vagina by performing sexual acts that led to the removal of the (vaginal hymen) which calls for the severity of the sentence under article (45) paragraph (B), because his sexual act has violated the vagina and not just harassment or any other sexual behaviour under paragraph (J), article (45) of the Child Act of 2010. e) It is evident that the criminal court and the appeal court had based their sentence on (factual and conclusive) instead of (circumstantial doubt) that is the accused had performed external sexual acts and there is no recent evidence that point out to any recent penetration or vaginal hymen removal on the victim Therefore, we support the accusation under article (45) Paragraph (J) of the Child Act of 2010; and we are also of the opinion from a purely judicial standpoint, that it is important to add the following reasons: First: The criminal law for 1991 under article (149) (1) on the interpretations stated under article (3) failed to define “against the will or rape”; neither did the Child Act of 2010. The interpreters of the judicial doctrine concluded that: a) The phase “against the will or rape” does not imply on a contextual level the existence of a crime in article (149) of the criminal law nor 45 (B) of the Child Act, but only 4