In total, if my two colleagues agreed, I see the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Supporting the conviction. Cancelling the punishment applied by the lower courts. Retaining the convicted in guardianship. Returning the proceeding before the trial court to work on this memorandum. Hassan Ahmed Omar Superior Court Judge 24/01/2014 AD Second Opinion After access to the proceeding and the rest of documents, I agree to the validity of the convictions under articles 78 and 21/175 CL of 1991, and to the validity of the punishment under article 78CL of 1991, and I see the following: 1. Court of Trial exceeded the punishment under article 175CL of 1988 and over passed the law because the punishment is the imprisonment not more than three years, in addition to any other punishment decided for the consequence of the action committed. 2. Court of Appeal diminished the punishment to the extent of neglecting the matter, in contradiction with article 39 of Criminal Law, which identified the controls of choosing the discretionary punishment in consideration of the ages of the convicted. All of them in their thirties and forties of age, and all of them have families and children. In addition, they drank wine and took night as a cover to commit their crime far away from the city. They are gang of six men against only a man and a woman, the thing that contradicts with virility and is strange to this region. This thing will forecast an extreme evil if it is not faced with prohibition and denial by applying the most extreme punishment for this kind of crimes which has no purpose but the corruption in land and disrespecting the honors and money. 3. Article 20 of the Criminal Law of 1991 states that “whoever commits a crime shall be punished by not more than the half of the maximum punishment decided for that, and if the committed action forms an independent crime, the culprit will be punished with the punishment decided for that”. Whereas the action attributed to the convicted which has been proved beyond the reasonable doubt is raping the victim/ Khadijah Sulaiman Ebrahim and tearing up her clothes and unveiling her hair in a trial to rape her in force, this action is a crime under article 151/2 CL of 1991- the outrageous acts without the satisfaction of the victim, which are punished with flogging by not more than 80 flogs, and are punished also with imprisonment for a period of not more than two years or a fine. For all that, I see if my colleague the owner of the third opinion agreed, that our decision is as follows: 1. Supporting the conviction and punishment under article 78 CL of 1991. 2. Supporting the conviction under article 21/175 CL of 1991, cancelling the punishment and returning the papers to the trial court to reconsider it on this memorandum. 3. The conviction shall be modified to be under article 21/151/2 CL of 1991 instead of article 20/149 CL of 1991. The imprisonment punishment shall be cancelled for his location and the papers shall be returned to one of trial courts to apply the punishment guided by this ruling. 4. The convicted shall remain in prison pending the trial.