6. The Complainants further allege that the Second Magistrate Court added a charge of apostasy on the ground that the first Victim was a Muslim because her father was a Muslim and was, therefore, prohibited by Sharia Law, as enshrined in Article 126 of the 1991Criminal Code, from changing to another religion. It is alleged that the first Victim was subsequently arrested with her son, Martin (the third Victim), and detained in Omd urman's Women's Prison near Khartoum. 7. The Complainants also allege that a new Judge wa~1i$};!£~~equently appointed to proceed with the case because the Second Magistrate Courfwas no·longer competent to hear the case because of the newly added charge of a, y. It r .eged that the new judge denied the defense's request to start the case de no, . d con ed with the hearing. The Complainants state that the defense presented three W::itness 0 testified that the first Victim's mother died in 2011and that*ejh~~;b~~ll atte'i1.f"'.. g~larly since 2005. The Complainants further aver that, wiffi~ut giving reason e Judge aenied the request of the defense to present the first Victim's father as a witness: 8. The Complainants allege that ill ,.:Jl;were no;subsequent hearings .Ad that on 11 May 2014, without taking illto considera. . n her right to freedom of religion and other fundamental human iight~guarantee . Sudah's Interim National Constitution, the Court convicted the first'Victim on ill .harge of apostasy and gave her three days to recant her faith}?rJ~cethe pos . tence of th by h(i,yging.The Complainants state further that aft~i:her convictio t i" / 5 May 20, . 0 M:uslimscholars came to AI-Haj Yousef Crimirial Court to convmc~~per to change her mind and said that she was a Muslim, but she affirmed her Christl'an;,f~thin an open court and said that she was never >+'(f~%f-\ a Mtt,sli~ and was raised as a Christian. 'ft!~.,~llegedthat the Court sentenced her to death by hanglng for apostasy and 100lashes for a~ultery . 'i •j 9. "1).tsallegeot~atgn 22 May 2014,the defense filed an appeal with the Court of AppeaLof Bhll i and Sharq Al Nil, and that the case was that if the sentences are confirmec n ap '~ase may be appealed to the Supreme Court. ,,:t~:~ 10. The Complainants allege that on 27 May 2014,the first Victim gave birth in Omdurman's Women's Prisdh;ltpa baby girl named Maya (the fourth Victim). It is further alleged that the first Victim di~mot stay in good conditions in the prison as she was constantly kept in shackles in her cell since her sentence on 15 May 2014,and that upon delivery, she was transferred to the prison clinic with her children, where the medical facilities were insufficient to provide adequate postnatal care.