the legislator mean the author if the crime that, to consummate the deed, placed the woman
in a state of mind that deprived her of her senses; that it completely intoxicates his victim,
plunging her in a lethargic sleep by administering a narcotic beverage (G. MINUER);
commentary of the Congolese Penal Code, ed. ma1son F. Larc1er, 1958, P.358),
Regarding the crime of rape with resort to threats, in this case, the Prosecution holds that
after that, the accused made use of moral violence and grave threats to force the plaintiff to
have sexual intercourse with him. In his grounds for defense, the accused argues that the
statement of the only witness Nadège cannot suffice to justify the Judge's conviction due the
consanguinity between her and the plaintiff NKUSUS. Further, he continues, it follows from
the plaintiff's statements (mark 16 to 17 on record) made to the Court that she had been
raped only once. The Court, he claims, found that this offense was not established both in fact
and law and consequently, the 1st Judge misinterpreted the law.
As mentioned above, the Court finds that the witness Nadège's statements serve to justify the
Judge's conviction since they are not countered by any serious element on record. Further, it
does not follow from any of the plaintiff's statements (marks 16 to 17 on record) that she was
only raped once, on the contrary, since she herself asked her sister GETU to talk to the
accused's mother in order to make him stop. Also, the Court finds that the accused himself
recognized in the public hearing of the 28th December 2012 (marks 94 on reciord) to have
sexually known the plaintiff several times in different hotels, namely Hotel Succès on the Ndjili
neighborhood, Hôtel de la Bonne Gérance next to the church la Borne at the UPN, Hôtel lita
in Bandalungwa and the venue Nguida in Lemba ; thus, as correctly pronounced by the 1 st
Judge, his work shall be equally confirmed;
Regarding the offense of fraud being held against the accused, in the terms of article 98 of
CPLII “anyone, who with the goal of appropriating something belonging to another, has been
provided with funds, furniture, obligations...whether using false names or qualities, whether
employing fraudulent manouvers to sustain the existence of false companies, to create
hope...”, In the present case, the matter being the fraud of 1.500$ USD, the Prosecution holds
that the accused led the victim to believe that he was a business man and that he worked in
collaboration with the Chines Embassy, and that he could deliver a visa in return for the
amount of 1.500$ USD, the truth being that the accused is neither a business man nor works
at the Chinese Embassy;
In his defense, the accused argues that the 1st Judge held this offense against him based in
the allegations of the plaintiff NKUSU and without any other evidence, and asks himself
where the plaintiff NKUSU could find the amount of 1.500 USD. To support his argument, he
invokes article 217 of the Civil Code Book III that states that “should be made a verified
contract or a private signature of all the dealings that exceed the amount of two thousand
Francs, even if disposed voluntarily, and no evidence shall be admitted by statement about
the content of the exchange, nor about what was allegedly said before, during, or after, even if
the matter concerns an amount less than two thousand Francs”; Also, adds the accused, the
abundant common law of the Supreme Court in this matter states that as far as an exchange
of an amount of six million Belgian Francs, article 47 of the Civil Code Book III “demands a
written proof for such an amount” (CS.J 1970, 28 September 1968, inédit) ;