These evidences are enough grounds to base the fact of rape under article 149/1 of the Criminal law. The Department of Advocacy stated correctly that the child law in article 45 (b) did not specifically define the crime of rape, therefore it is based on the definition of the criminal code which is the mounting of the rapper or the sexual encounter between the same sex without the consent of the partner or for a male to mount a female without a legal bind or for a female to allow a male member to mount her without a legal bond – To mount is to insert the tip of the male member whole or the approximation of the male member onto the female member and that the to mount whether rape or kisses mentioned on article 49/1 is meant to mean the discerption of the incident therefore the act of this definition of adultery or abomination and the crime of rape is introduced by the male genitalia or some of it - the genitalia of another person, both in front and behind, is the intended form of article 149/1 of the Criminal law. In this case, it has been proven to remove the victim's carcass and the presence of ulcers, blood and sexual assault. However, the entry of the male genitalia into the accused was not established and the medical report did not explain that indictment. [1] Whereas article 149/1, which speaks of rape, requires entry as an important link in proving this crime, namely the crime of rape. And the entry is not only the introduction of the male genital organ in the genitalia of another person and how it came in the article mentioned that the victim said that the defendant has had his finger in the genitalia of the girl, it is metaphorically and this situation that provides access to the justification for the conviction of the crime of rape and then not valid. The conviction under article 45/b of the Children's Law and become under article 45/c as reached by the Supreme National Court in its decision under review. I am sure that the defendant was the one who committed the incident. I have no doubt that the defendant was the one who committed the incident. Therefore, I see that the ruling issued by the circle of support in the majority view has come true and that there is nothing in it that requires our intervention. Remove the request for review and support the judgment to amend the conviction of article 45/c of the Children's law and abolish the penalty and return the papers to the subject court to sign the appropriate punishment. (Signature) Mohammed Mustafa Hamed Judge of the Supreme Court 26/3/2018 (Signature) Salah Al Tijani Al Ameen Judge of the Supreme Court 29/3/2018 (Signature) Abir Al Mahi Abdul Rahman Judge of the Supreme Court 02/04/2018 (Signature) Awad Hussain Awad (Signature) Ahmed Mohammed Al Faki