in forcibly dragging the victim to a room where, by means of violence and coercion, the latter had sexual relations with her; C.P. after acknowledging that they had used force to drag the victim to their room where they had, by the same means subdued her, stripped her naked, maintains that he abstained from doing so, the victim having begged him not to do so because she was allegedly menstruating; that he even retracted those statements, stating that he had negotiated with S.B. to have sexual relations with her, but that she had refused for the above-mentioned reason; that he then let her go; Whereas, however, this narrative of events cannot stand up to serious analysis; whereas, firstly, the corroborating statements of the victim and C.A. show that they accosted the victim on her way back from the bush and then pretended to want to pay her for wild grapes she was carrying; whereas, after helping themselves, the accused grabbed the victim and dragged her to their room; whereas she struggled to the point of clinging to the door of the room; whereas C. P. pulled her hand away; she then fell; this did not stop the accused in their operation, who dragged her on the floor into the room; when she screamed, C.P. used a cloth to muzzle her; Then CA took off her skirt and her pants; That although CP denies having had or attempted to have sexual relations with her at the time, he nevertheless acknowledged before the State Counsel of Faso that the victim was with him in a room when he stated, referring to CA, that "he did not enter the house with us"; However, he refrains from saying how or why the victim could have been with him inside a room while he seemed to be saying that after the victim refused to have sexual relations with him following his proposal, he just let her leave without any violence or sexual activity; That these remarks are all the more in keeping with those of his acolyte, as one can legitimately wonder about his interest in declaring that he had participated in criminal facts, thus exposing himself to criminal prosecution if this was not the case; That, secondly, CA also declared that he had not had sexual relations with the victim, whereas the medical certificate in the file mentions the absence of the hymen for a victim who claimed being a virgin before the attack; That the victim's claim of virginity could have been questionable if CP himself had not declared that he had seen the victim's pants stained with blood, even if he maintains in bad faith that it was the victim's menstrual period as reported to him; That it was probably the blood due to the loss of the hymen; Whereas, in any event, it is at least established by all the foregoing that CA and CP used coercion and violence to drag SB into their house; That by the same means they overcame any resistance from her by immobilizing her, muzzling her, thus allowing CA to remove her skirt and shorts and CP to have or attempt to have sexual relations with her; That it cannot then be