intervention to mitigate the punishment decided against her on the basis of the summary of the reasons below: 1- She has compelling family circumstances. No….59/2015 Firstly, I consider that the request be accepted pro forma under our authority stipulated in Article (188) of the Criminal Procedures Code of 1991. As for the reasons, and after having reviewed the record of the proceedings, I find that the applicant does not dispute the conviction. Despite this, I believe that should not block our intervention to verify that the ruling was in compliance with the prerequisites of the law. And on this I am of the opinion that the conviction was in compliance with the prerequisites of the law, based on the retracted admission of guilt, which was supported by objective and documented evidence. As for the punishment, I believe that my duty dictates pointing out that, individualizing the punishment is a power exercised by the authority of the Criminal Court, being more qualified than other courts of justice to estimate the suitable punishment. And to add that our court, a court of law, is not to intervene in estimating the punishment, unless it is in violation of the law. And as it is abiding by the law, I see, if my colleagues agree, that we uphold the ruling against which the examination request is made. Adlan Alnaim Aldow Supreme Court Justice 5/2/2015 I agree Tariq Aldow Ayoub Supreme Court Justice 8/2/2015 2