crime of the offender, he is a prostitute in the sense of the victim and his conviction in this case is execution by stoning as a marginal crime and not of conscience. This is due to the discretion of the competent court, but the essence remains, which is: The crime could be established under article (45) B of the child law for 2010 as a reprehension crime through the evidence and the circumstances, as long as a violation of the vagina or rectum has been established by these incriminating evidence that are penalized in this case by article (45) paragraph (B). If the incrimination fails to establish that the vagina or the rectum has been traumatized with conclusive evidence, the crime shall be a reprehensive crime under paragraph (G) of article (45) of the law. After reading the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on the above-mentioned points of view, we could adopt second point of view because it fulfils the intentions of the law, which is the protection of the child against crimes and whatever degree of harm or damage caused on innocent children Therefore, it is clear from the interpretation of the National Supreme Court jurisprudence that: 1. The child act is a special law addressing offences and sanctions. It must be established by all means of proof of the circumstances of the offense referred to in Article 45 / B, where the vagina is found to have been traumatized by an act of the offender, by mentioning it or by any other means. 2. The statements of the male or female child require that it be corroborated by evidence or with related circumstantial evidence supporting the indicting report under “one of the conditions under article (45) of the child law”. 3. The physical harm and damage to the vagina or the rectum which constitutes a violation under paragraph (B) of article (45) is considered as damage and body injuries that require punishment. If it results in a more serious harm/damage and physical or psychological pain, the most severe punishment will be applicable, according to the evidence presented in each case. Returning to the case at hand, it is clear that: a) The accused has sexually harassed the victim. b) The medical report failed to conclusively establish that the accused violated the vagina or that the removal of the vaginal hymen is a direct result of a recent violation, since the report failed to mention the existence of redness of the vagina or any other visible cuts and bruises to be taken as evidence of violation of the said body part, which constitutes a presumption that the removal of the vagina hymen had happened before the incident. c) The mere absence of the vagina hymen is considered an evidence to the removal of the hymen and should be concluded that the acts and behaviour of the accused are responsible for the removal of the hymen, in accordance with the indicting report under article (45) of paragraph (B) 7