supra.) Uganda ratified CEDAW and the various conventions, which constitute the International Bill of Rights In addition, under Article 21 of the Constitution that proclaims equality of all persons under the law, equal protection of the law and prohibition against discrimination on the ground of sex, Uganda enacted the heart of the above international instruments in one stroke. Therefore, Uganda has the obligation to give effect to the contents of those international instruments. For that reason, the above rule that discriminates against women and is inconsistent with Uganda’s international obligations and the Constitution is not legally justifiable. Under Article 2 of the Constitution the fate of any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is very clear. Such law is null and void. It follows, therefore, that the above rule is null and void, In concluding this area of the judgement, Court simply wishes to say that it will not apply the above rule because it discriminates against women and is, therefore, in conflict with Uganda’s international obligations and the constitution. Court will now proceed to point out what the prosecution has to prove if it is to succeed in a case of defilement. A perusal of section 123(1) of the Penal Code Act reveals that the prosecution bad to prove the foil owing, (a) that the victim was a girl under the age of’ 18 years on 18th July 2001; (b) that the victim had sexual intercourse on I 8 July 2001; arid (c) that the accused is the person who committed the offence in question. In order to find out whether or not the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt Court will consider, below, each of the above ingredients in relation with the law and the evidence on record. With regard to the first ingredient, that is to say, that the victim was a girl under the age of 18 years on 18th July 2001, Court has this to say. The law is that the best evidence of age is a birth certificate. However in its absence, the evidence of a person such as a close relative, who is well acquainted, with the victim, is admissible. (See Uganda v Enock Babumpabura Criminal Session Case No. 135 of 92.) Observation and common sense are also acceptable methods of gauging a victim’s age. (See R v Recorder of Grimsby. Ex Parte Purser (1951) 2 All E.R.