[Handwriting: First she was ordered to be stoned, she got pregnant while her husband was not living with her, she is from Nuba Mountains - hardly speaks Arabic No lawyer attended. --- scrach --- Judgment ordered from Public Order Court] Number: M A\ A S G\1188\2012 “The accused has the right to defend himself personally or through a lawyer of his choice, and has right to the government assistance in providing legal aid for him if he is unable to defend himself”, as it mentions in Article 35\3 that reads: “if the defendant is accused of a crime punishable by 10 years imprisonment, or more, or amputation, or death is underprivileged, then the Attorney General, upon request of the defendant, is obligated to assist his counsel and the government covers expenses in whole or in part”. Adding that the data was insufficient, and the guilty plea was incorrect. He added that the convict had retracted her plea, and that pregnancy was not viable evidence if she wasn’t married, and if the other defendant refuted her statement, the Hudd is therefore not applicable. The matter-of-fact of the claim was concluded in a complaint to the district attorney by the defendant’s sister, claiming that the defendant was pregnant, and had found her in the dwelling of another lady named (Errisala). After the complaint was recorded and the three defendants who were; the first defendant Lutfi Aburroos Jaber, Intisar Sharif Abdalla and Errisala Khamis Mellaki, were arrested. After questioning them the investigation file was referred to trial. Following the hearing the prosecution, the criminal claim against the first defendant was acquitted for lack of evidence against him. It later came to be known that the third defendant deceased to the mercy of god, therefore the criminal claim against her was dropped. A week later the defendant Intisar was indicted and pled guilty according to the provision of Article 144 of the Criminal Code 1991. The court stayed the decision and released the defendant. The defendant was addressed with the indictment for the second time and pled guilty. Thereafter was the decision of the court of the subject-matter. As a matter-of-fact Article 135(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 provides that the defendant has the right to an attorney or advocate, and paragraph 3 replaces Article 193 of Criminal Procedure Act 1983 that provides that if the defendant was accused of a crime punishable by 10 years imprisonment or more, or death, or amputation - while underprivileged, then it falls on the Attorney General - by burden to appoint a legal counsel at the request of the defendant. The objective of this provision is to state the necessity of having a lawyer to represent a defendant accused of a crime with severe punishment, particularly those who are unable to defend themselves. It is also clear that the crime in the matter of this claim is punishable by death, and is bestowed by the subject-matter court upon the defendant. I could not find any indication that the court demanded a lawyer from the defendant or offered to provide one through the Attorney General if the defendant is underprivileged, to advocate for the defendant. This fact, no doubt, cancels the conviction and the penalty