On the same date of 05/24/2018 Attorneys Somaya Ishag, Ahmed Ali Sebair, Amani Osman, Samia Argawi, Abdalla Mohamed Ibrahim, Ishag Ahmed and Elfatih Husein appealed the ruling on behalf of the above-mentioned defendant. They requested the intervention of this court and presented their argument that we summarize as that the Subject-Matter Court based on its decision on the testimony the defendant gave at the investigation stage, and disregarded the rest of her testimony in trial, without a causality, when it ought not to segment a sworn confession apart. Furthermore, the defendant was wedded before turning eighteen, without a judge permission, and without verifying her age, only a copy of the defendant’s National Number was filed without verification. The Subject-Matter Court did not consider the revision of Article (149) of the Criminal Code 1991. the Subject-Matter Court also did not give the defendant the benefit of lawful self-defense argument, since the defendant faced the risk of rape. She ought to benefit of such defense since the deceased copulation with the defendant was without her consent, and was with the aid of his parents. The Subject-Matter Court also disregarded the defendant’s defense argument of provocation Article (131-2) of Criminal Code 1991, a course the courts rode, whose principles were founded by the supreme court including cumulative provocation as in the supreme court’s decision: Government of the Sudan vs. Muga Kujour number M A K/129/73, also the decision number A/T J/701/2007. Moreover, the Subject-Matter Court did not consider the defendant’s psychological shock resulting from violent intercourse which is amount to psychological torture that the defendant was unable to bear. Adding that the National Number was not verified. For these reasons they demanded our intervention. On 05/27/2018 attorneys Salam Madani Ahmed and Lutfi Abdelrahman Saad appealed on behalf of the defendant demanding our intervention for the reasons we summarize as that the Subject-Matter Court did not discuss cumulative provocation principle that was set by Supreme Court in: Government of the Sudan vs. Saki Sedhum Boles, which set the principle of cumulative provocation; also, Government of the Sudan vs. Nafisa Dafaalla, Gazette 61, saying: “Although the defendant was sane enough to cognate her actions, it seems, with the corroboration of the Psychiatrist Eltijani Elmahi, that under her severe jealousy emotions for her husband she developed fears that caused her wrath along with the angry behavior.” The advocates see that the deceased practice of sexual intercourse with her, with the aid of others, amounted to forcible sex. Therefore, they demand our intervention to revise the conviction. On 05/31/2018 the Public Defense Administration (Ministry of Justice) provided additional reasons on behalf of the Minister of Justice for the defendant. We summarize the reasons in the motion that the defendant was wed to the deceased whilst she was a 15 year old child, and was rejected when she reached her legal age. She refused the marriage and was forced to accept it, which was a violation to her constitutional right. After the marriage, he took her to an apartment where she refused to have sex with him. He asked help from his relatives, who beat the girl until she panicked and lost control… [Handwriting: 14 - 3] Number: MA/ASJ/1188/2018 of herself and did not feel when she stabbed him repeatedly. Furthermore, the Subject-Matter Court violated a well-established profoundly active procedure about accepting the defendant’s sworn confession without segmenting since prosecution did not provide supporting evidence to the claims, therefore she ought to use the benefit of provocation defense.