Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia every woman from rape, the Court acted arbitrarily in violation of Ms Negash's rights to: equal protection of law (Article 3); protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 5, Art. 4); protection from discrimination (Art. 2); and integrity and security of person (Art. 6, Art. 4). 89. Similarly, the judge drew the wrong inference that Ms Negash had consent to the principal offender's sexual solicitations. Ms Negash or her legal representative were not notified of the appeal hearing and thus had no opportunity to provide information that she had been abducted, raped and forced to sign a purported marriage certificate, which demonstrate that she had not consented. In addition, the zonal prosecutor failed to raise relevant points of law which could have sustained the convictions and sentences against the perpetrators if they had been raised on appeal. For example, virginity is not a legal prerequisite for the offence of rape. Rape of a child under 15 years of age was punishable by imprisonment of up to 15 years. Sexual intercourse with a minor was punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment. The purported subsequent marriage between the principal offender and the victim from which the judge probably inferred consent was invalid under domestic law on two grounds: (a) the victim signed the purported marriage contract under duress; and (b) in any event the victim, being a minor, had no capacity to enter a valid legal contract under domestic law. The legal age of marriage was 15 years, and the victim was only 13 years old at the time. 90. By failing to raise relevant points of law and present relevant evidence, and by abdicating his duty to support the convictions and sentences, the prosecutor denied Ms Negash equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Similarly, by drawing the wrong inference that the victim had consented to sexual solicitations, the court acted arbitrarily and failed in its duty to diligently examine the case. By these failures the Respondent State also violated Ms Negash's right to inherent dignity guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter. 91. Further, the abduction and rape of Ms Negash, coupled with being forced to sign a marriage certificate, caused her physical and psychological suffering and humiliated her. These acts were in violation of her rights to integrity of her person, to respect for her inherent dignity, to be free from all forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, to liberty and security of the person and to be protected from discrimination as guaranteed under Articles 4, 5, 6, and 18(3) of the Charter. By failing to diligently investigate these acts, examine all aspects of the case, and to punish the perpetrators the Respondent State violated Ms Negash's rights under the Charter. 92. Further, the Respondent State's superior courts failed to correct tl^d^cM^nf6|Hhe Arsi High Court on further appeals which culminated in the decision of the