CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 décembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s812A4BBF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .s4EDC3409 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s21DA24D5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s7BB60D65 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s70114485 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s6E8A3574 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E0D576A { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCACA8EA8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s48F37204 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7E53E5B4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sB3DB1E9C { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s706B362D { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .sD107E55B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s71BC72F4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB20C2835 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD3338BAA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s98DFCB70 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC2E0339F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s498509A2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D08A2D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sD85D3081 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     FIRST SECTION     CASE OF M.C. v. BULGARIA   (Application no. 39272/98)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     4 December 2003     FINAL   04/03/2004           In the case of M.C. v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   E. Levits   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 13 November 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 39272/98) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, M.C. (“the applicant”), on 23   December 1997. In the proceedings before the Court, the President of the Chamber acceded to the applicant's request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. Mr Grozev submitted a power of attorney dated 27 November 1997, signed by the applicant and her mother. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms V. Djidjeva, Ms M. Dimova and Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant alleged violations of her rights under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention in that domestic law and practice in rape cases and the investigation into the rape of which she had been a victim did not secure the observance by the respondent State of its positive obligation to provide effective legal protection against rape and sexual abuse. 4.     The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.     The application was initially allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1). 6.     On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 7.     By a decision of 5 December 2002, the Chamber declared the application admissible. 8.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ). In addition, third-party comments were received from Interights, a non-governmental organisation based in London, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and former Rule 61 § 3). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1980. 10.     She alleged that she had been raped by two men on 31 July and 1   August 1995, when she was 14 years and 10 months old. The ensuing investigation came to the conclusion that there was insufficient proof of the applicant having been compelled to have sex. A.     The events of the night of 31 July to 1 August 1995 1.     The evening of 31 July 11.     On 31 July 1995 the applicant and a friend of hers had been waiting to enter a disco bar in the town of K., when three men, P. (21 years old at the time), A. (20 years old at the time) and V.A. (age not specified), arrived in a car owned by P. The applicant knew P. and A. She had met P. in the same disco bar and had danced with him once. A. was the older brother of a classmate of hers. 12.     A. invited the applicant to go with him and his friends to a disco bar in a small town 17 km away. According to the applicant, she agreed on condition that she would be back home before 11 p.m. 13.     In the bar, one or two of the group had drinks. The applicant saw some friends, with whom she had a short chat. According to the applicant, she repeatedly told the others it was time to leave, as it was getting late. 14.     At some time late in the evening, the group left and headed back to K. On the way, they were briefly stopped and checked by traffic police. 15.     A. then suggested stopping for a swim at a nearby reservoir. According to the applicant, they went there despite her objections. She submitted that she had not suspected the men's intentions. 2.     Events at the reservoir 16.     At the reservoir, the applicant remained in the car, in the front passenger seat, saying that she was not interested in swimming. The three men headed towards the water. Soon afterwards, P. came back and sat in the front seat next to the applicant. 17.     In her statements to the investigating authorities, the applicant submitted that P. had then pressed his body against hers, proposed that they “become friends” and started kissing her. The applicant had refused his advances and had asked him to leave. P. had persisted in kissing her while she had tried to push him back. He had then moved the car seat back to a horizontal position, grabbed her hands and pressed them against her back. The applicant had been scared and at the same time embarrassed by the fact that she had put herself in such a situation. She had not had the strength to resist violently or scream. Her efforts to push P. back had been unsuccessful, as he had been far stronger. P. had undressed her partially and had forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. 18.     In her testimony, the applicant stated: “It was my first time and it hurt a lot. I felt sick and I wanted to throw up. I started crying.” 19.     According to P.'s statements, he had had sex with the applicant in the car with her full consent. He had started kissing her, she had responded, and he had tried unsuccessfully to unbutton her jeans or loosen her belt, whereupon she had done so herself and had taken off her pants. 20.     After P. had finished, he left the car and walked towards A. and V.A. In his submissions to the police, A. said that P. had told them that he had “shagged” the applicant. Shortly afterwards, the three men returned to the car and the group drove off. 21.     In her submissions to the investigator, the applicant stated that she had later come to suspect that the three men had planned to have sex with her and had invented the pretext of swimming to drive to a deserted area. In particular, she did not remember A. and V.A. being wet when they had come back to the car, although they had insisted on going to the reservoir for a swim. 3.     The alleged second rape 22.     The applicant later testified that after the first rape she had been very disturbed and had cried most of the time. According to the version of events given by P. and A. when later questioned, the applicant had been in an excellent mood, had started caressing A., which had irritated P., and had asked to go to a bar or a restaurant. The group had gone to a restaurant, where the applicant had briefly talked with a Ms T., the singer performing there. Ms T. had been sitting at a table there with one Mr M. 23.     Ms T., the singer, stated that on 1 August 1995 she had been in the restaurant with Mr M. Shortly after midnight the applicant, whom she knew vaguely, had approached her and asked whether her group would be performing in the next few days. Ms T. recalled having seen at that moment a man waiting at the door. Having heard the answer to her question, the applicant had left. Ms T. stated that the applicant had appeared cheerful and that there had been nothing unusual in her behaviour. 24.     Mr M. was also questioned by the police. He stated that he knew the applicant very well and that he did not remember having seen her that night. 25.     The applicant disputed the statements of P., A., V.A. and Ms T., maintaining that there had been no visit to a restaurant and that she did not know Ms T. The applicant and her mother later accused Ms T. of perjury (see paragraphs 66-68 below). 26.     Instead of returning to K., at around 3 a.m. the group went to a neighbouring town, where V.A.'s relatives had a house. A., V.A. and the applicant got out of the car. P., who was the owner of the car, drove off. 27.     The three men and a baker, Mr S., called by them as a witness, later maintained that in the meantime there had been a short stop at Mr S.'s bakery. Mr S. allegedly had the key to the house. Mr S., when interrogated, stated that at about 2 a.m. he had given the key to V.A. and had seen the applicant waiting in the car, apparently in a good mood. Loud music had been coming from the car. The applicant disputed that there had been any visit to a baker's shop and accused the baker of perjury. P., A. and V.A. submitted in their statements that they had decided to go to the house as the applicant had told them that she had quarrelled with her mother and did not want to go back home. 28.     The applicant stated to the police that she had felt helpless and in need of protection. As A. was the brother of a classmate of hers, she had expected such protection from him and had followed him and V.A. into a room on the ground floor of the house. 29.     There was one bed in the room and the applicant sat on it. The two men smoked and talked for a while. V.A. then left the room. 30.     The applicant maintained that at that point A. had sat next to her, pushed her down onto the bed, undressed her and forced her to have sex with him. The applicant had not had the strength to resist violently. She had only begged the man to stop. She later related in her statement: “I started crying and asked him to stop ... He started caressing my breasts and sucking my neck ... At some point he took my jeans and my pants off with his feet. Then he spread my legs apart with his legs and forced his way into me ... [After he finished] I started crying and I continued crying until some time in the morning, when I fell asleep ... [V.A.] woke me up telling me that [A.] had gone to find a car to drive me back to K. I sat on the bed and started crying.” 31.     A.'s position before the police was that he had had sex with the applicant with her full consent. 4.     The morning of 1 August 1995 32.     On the following morning at around 7 a.m., the applicant's mother found her daughter in the house of V.A.'s relatives. The applicant's mother stated that, having learned from neighbours that her daughter had been seen the previous evening with A., she had been on her way to A.'s house when she had met V.A. in the street. V.A. had allegedly tried to mislead the applicant's mother in an effort to gain time and warn A. However, she had insisted. 33.     The applicant and her mother maintained in their submissions during the investigation that the applicant had told her mother right away that she had been raped. A. had also been there. He had told the applicant's mother that “a truck driver” had had sex with her daughter the previous night. 34.     According to A.'s version of events, the applicant and her mother had quarrelled, the applicant allegedly refusing to go with her and telling her to go away. A neighbour, apparently named as a witness by A. or V.A., stated that he had heard the quarrel and, in particular, the refusal of the applicant to leave with her mother and her saying that nothing had happened to her. The applicant accused the witness of perjury. 35.     The applicant and her mother went directly to the local hospital, where they were directed to see a forensic medical examiner. The applicant was examined at about 4 p.m. 36.     The medical examiner found that the hymen had been freshly torn. He also noted grazing on the applicant's neck, measuring 35 mm by 4 mm, and four small oval-shaped bruises. As noted in the medical certificate, the applicant had reported only one rape, stating that it had occurred between 10.30 and 11 p.m. the previous day at the reservoir. B.     Events between 1 and 11 August 1995 37.     The applicant submitted that during the next few days she had refused to talk to her mother about the incident. She had given no details and had not mentioned the second rape at all. She explained that she lived in a conservative small-town environment where virginity was considered to be an asset for marriage. She felt ashamed of the fact that she had “failed to protect her virginity” and of “what people would say about it”. 38.     On the first evening after the events, on 1 August 1995, P. visited the applicant's family. The applicant and her mother stated that that evening P. had begged for forgiveness and had claimed that he would marry the applicant when she came of age. The applicant's mother had considered that accepting the offer would be reasonable in the circumstances. This had influenced the initial behaviour of the applicant, who had accepted her mother's idea of minimising the damage. 39.     On one of the following evenings, the applicant went out with P. and some of his friends. 40.     P. and V.A., the latter claiming that he had been with P. during the visit to the applicant's house on the evening of 1 August 1995, stated that the applicant's mother had told them that “all pleasure must be paid for” and had tried to extort money from them. 41.     P.'s grandmother also made a statement to the police. She asserted that on an unspecified date the applicant's mother had visited her, trying to extort money. 42.     With regard to that visit and other relevant events, Mrs D., a neighbour and friend of the applicant's mother, stated that the applicant's mother had been very upset about the events and had agreed to her daughter going out with P. as he had maintained that he loved the applicant. The applicant's mother had nevertheless decided to talk to P.'s parents. On an unspecified date Mrs D. and another neighbour had approached the house of P.'s family, but his grandmother had told them to go away, stating that the applicant had slept not only with P. but also with A. At that moment A. had arrived. Mrs D. had asked him whether it was true that he had slept with the applicant. He had confirmed that it was true, adding that he had the money and power to do as he pleased. Until then, the applicant's mother had not known about the second rape. 43.     The applicant submitted that a visit by A.'s father on 8 August 1995 had caused her to break down. She had then confided to her mother about the second rape. On 10 August 1995 the applicant's father returned home, after being absent for several days. The family discussed the matter and decided to file a complaint. The applicant's mother did so on 11 August 1995. C.     The investigation 1.     The initial police inquiry 44.     On 11 August 1995 the applicant made a written statement about the events of 31 July and 1 August. On the same day P. and A. were arrested and made written statements. They claimed that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with them of her own free will. The two men were released. Written statements were also made by V.A. and a person who lived next to the house where the second alleged rape had taken place. On 25 August 1995 a police officer drew up a report and forwarded the file to the competent prosecutor. 45.     On 14 November 1995 the district prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the alleged rape and referred the case to an investigator. No charges were brought. 46.     No action was taken on the case between November 1995 and November 1996. 2.     The proceedings in relation to the complaints by P. and A. alleging perjury 47.     On 24 August 1995 P. and A. filed complaints with the district prosecutor's office, stating that the applicant and her mother had been harassing them by making false public accusations. 48.     On the basis of these complaints, on 28 August 1995, the district prosecutor ordered a police inquiry. In September and October 1995 several persons were heard and made written statements. 49.     On 25 October 1995 a police officer drew up a report apparently accrediting the allegations of P. and A. and disbelieving the version of the facts as submitted by the applicant and her mother. 50.     On 27 October 1995 the file was transmitted to the district prosecutor's office with jurisdiction to decide whether or not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and her mother. It appears that the matter was left hanging and no decision was taken. 3.     The resumed investigation into the rape case 51.     Between 2 November and 9 December 1996 the investigator questioned the applicant, her mother and other witnesses. P. and A. were heard as witnesses. 52.     The applicant gave a detailed account of the facts, repeating that P. had overcome her resistance by pressing her against the car seat and twisting her hands, and that thereafter she had been in a state of shock and unable to resist A. 53.     In his evidence, P. claimed that the applicant had actively responded to his advances. He also asserted that the applicant had spoken with Mr M. at the restaurant they had allegedly gone to after having sex. 54.     Both A. and P. stated, inter alia , that shortly after having sex with P. at the reservoir, the applicant had started caressing A. in the car. 55.     On 18 December 1996 the investigator completed his work on the case. He drew up a report stating that there was no evidence that P. and A. had used threats or violence, and proposed that the prosecutor close the case. 56.     On 7 January 1997 the district prosecutor ordered an additional investigation. The order stated that the initial investigation had not been objective, thorough or complete. 57.     On 16 January 1997 the investigator to whom the case had been referred appointed a psychiatrist and a psychologist to answer several questions. The experts were asked, inter alia , whether it was likely that the applicant would have spoken calmly with Ms T., the singer at the restaurant, and then listened to music in the car, if she had just been raped and whether it was likely that several days after the alleged rape the applicant would have gone out with the person who had raped her. 58.     The experts considered that, owing to her naivety and inexperience, the applicant had apparently not considered the possibility that she might be sexually assaulted. There was no indication that she had been threatened or hurt, or that she had been in a state of shock during the events, as she had demonstrated a clear recollection of them. The experts considered that during the events she must have been suddenly overwhelmed by an internal conflict between a natural sexual interest and a sense that the act was reprehensible, which had “reduced her ability to resist and defend herself”. They further found that the applicant was psychologically sound and that she had understood the meaning of the events. In view of her age at the time, however, she “could not assert a stable set of convictions”. 59.     The experts also found that, if there had indeed been a meeting between Ms T. and the applicant after the events at the reservoir – and this was disputed – it was still possible that the applicant could have had a short exchange with Ms T. after being raped. As to the applicant going out with P. several days after the events, this could be easily explained by her family's desire to lend a socially acceptable meaning to the incident. 60.     On 28 February 1997 the investigator concluded his work on the case and drew up a report, again proposing that the case should be closed. He considered that the experts' opinion did not affect his earlier finding that there was no evidence demonstrating the use of force or threats. 61.     On 17 March 1997 the district prosecutor ordered the closure of the criminal investigation. He found, inter alia , that the use of force or threats had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In particular, no resistance on the applicant's part or attempts to seek help from others had been established. 62.     The applicant lodged consecutive appeals with the regional prosecutor's office and the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. The appeals were dismissed in decisions of 13 May and 24 June 1997 respectively. 63.     The prosecutors relied, inter alia , on the statements of the alleged perpetrators and V.A. that the applicant had not shown any signs of distress after having sex with P. at the reservoir, and the evidence of the three men and Ms T. that the latter had met the applicant and had spoken with her that night. As regards the applicant's objections that those statements should be rejected as being untrue, the decision of 13 May 1997 stated that “prosecutors' decisions cannot be based on suppositions, and witnesses' statements cannot be rejected only on the basis of doubts, without other evidence ...”. 64.     The decision of 13 May 1997 also stated: “It is true that, as can be seen from the report of the forensic psychiatric experts, the young age of the applicant and her lack of experience in life meant that she was unable to assert a stable set of convictions, namely to demonstrate firmly her unwillingness to engage in sexual contact. There can be no criminal act under Article 152 §§ 1 (2) and 3 of the Criminal Code, however, unless the applicant was coerced into having sexual intercourse by means of physical force or threats. This presupposes resistance, but there is no evidence of resistance in this particular case. P. and A. could be held criminally responsible only if they understood that they were having sexual intercourse without the applicant's consent and if they used force or made threats precisely with the aim of having sexual intercourse against the applicant's will. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant demonstrated unwillingness to have sexual intercourse and that P. and A. used threats or force.” It was further noted that the applicant had explained that the bruises on her neck had been caused by sucking. 65.     The decision of 24 June 1997 reiterated those findings, while noting that the statements of Ms T., the singer at the restaurant, were not decisive. It also stated: “What is decisive in the present case is that it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that physical or psychological force was used against the applicant and that sexual intercourse took place against her will and despite her resistance. There are no traces of physical force such as bruises, torn clothing, etc. ... It is true that it is unusual for a girl who is under age and a virgin to have sexual intercourse twice within a short space of time with two different people, but this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that a criminal act took place, in the absence of other evidence and in view of the impossibility of collecting further evidence.” 4.     Other proceedings 66.     In June or July 1997 the applicant and her mother requested the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms T. and other witnesses, including V.A., alleging that they had committed perjury in that their statements in connection with the investigation into the rape of the applicant had been false. 67.     On 14 July 1997 the same prosecutor from the district prosecutor's office who had ordered the closure of the rape investigation refused the request, stating that it was unfounded and even abusive, as all the facts had been clarified in previous proceedings. 68.     An ensuing appeal by the applicant was dismissed on 6 February 1998 by the regional prosecutor's office. D.     The expert opinion submitted by the applicant 69.     In June 2001 the applicant submitted a written opinion by two Bulgarian experts, Dr Svetlozar Vasilev, a psychiatrist, and Mr Valeri Ivanov, a psychologist, who had been asked by the applicant's lawyer to comment on the case. 70.     The experts stated, with reference to scientific publications in several countries, that two patterns of response by rape victims to their attacker were known: violent physical resistance and “frozen fright” (also known as “traumatic psychological infantilism syndrome”). The latter was explained by the fact that any experience-based model of behaviour was inadequate when the victim was faced with the inevitability of rape. As a result the victim, terrorised, often adopted a passive-response model of submission, characteristic of childhood, or sought a psychological dissociation from the event, as if it were not happening to her. 71.     The experts stated that all the scientific publications they had studied indicated that the “frozen-fright pattern” prevailed. Further, they had conducted their own research for the purposes of their written opinion in the present case. They had analysed all the cases of young women aged 14 to 20 who had contacted two specialised treatment programmes for victims of violence in Bulgaria during the period from 1996 to 2001, declaring that they had been raped. Cases that were too different from that of the applicant had been excluded. As a result, twenty-five cases had been identified, in twenty-four of which the victim had not resisted violently, but had reacted with passive submission. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 72.     By Article 151 § 1 of the Criminal Code, sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years of age is a punishable offence (statutory rape). Consent is not a valid defence in such cases. 73.     Consent is likewise irrelevant where the victim is more than 14 years old, but did not “understand the essence and meaning of the occurrence” (Article 151 § 2 of the Code). That provision has been applied in cases where the victim did not grasp the meaning of the events owing to a mental disorder (see judgment no. 568 of 18 August 1973, case no. 540/73, Supreme Court-I). 74.     Article 152 § 1 of the Criminal Code defines rape as: “sexual intercourse with a woman (1)     incapable of defending herself, where she did not consent; (2)     who was compelled by the use of force or threats; (3)     who was brought to a state of helplessness by the perpetrator.” 75.     Although lack of consent is mentioned explicitly only in the first sub-paragraph, the Supreme Court has held that it is an element inherent in the whole provision (see judgment no. 568, cited above). 76.     According to judicial practice, the three sub-paragraphs of Article   152 § 1 can only be applied alternatively, each of them referring to a separate factual situation. The Supreme Court has held that general references to two or all of the sub-paragraphs are not acceptable (see judgment no. 247 of 24 April 1974, case no. 201/74, Supreme Court-I; judgment no. 59 of 19 May 1992, case no. 288/90, Supreme Court-I; and many others). 77.     Therefore, an accused person may be found guilty of rape only if it has been established that he had sexual intercourse with a woman in circumstances covered by one of the three sub-paragraphs. 78.     The first and third sub-paragraphs concern particular factual situations where the victim was in a state of helplessness at the time of sexual intercourse. The third sub-paragraph refers to cases where the perpetrator put the victim in a state of helplessness before raping her, whereas the first sub-paragraph refers to cases where he took advantage of the victim's existing state of helplessness. 79.     The courts have stated that a victim is in a state of helplessness (“incapable of defending herself” or “brought to a state of helplessness”) only in circumstances where she has no capacity to resist physically owing to disability, old age or illness (see judgment no. 484 of 29 July 1983, case no. 490/83, and judgment no. 568, cited above) or because of the use of alcohol, medicines or drugs (see judgment no. 126 of 11 April 1977, case no. 69/77, Supreme Court-II). 80.     The second sub-paragraph is the provision applicable in all other cases of alleged rape. Thus, where no special circumstances such as the state of helplessness of the victim are reported, an investigation into an alleged rape will concentrate on establishing whether or not the victim was coerced into having sexual intercourse by the use of force or threats. 81.     It is an established view in the case-law and legal theory that rape under the second sub-paragraph of Article 152 § 1 of the Criminal Code is a “two ‑ step” offence – that is to say, the perpetrator first starts employing force or threats and then penetrates the victim. 82.     The parties in the present case offered their views on the meaning of the words “use of force and threats” and their interpretation in practice (see paragraphs 113, 122 and 123 below). 83.     The Supreme Court has stated that lack of consent is to be deduced from the fact that a situation covered by one of the three sub-paragraphs of Article 152 § 1 has been established, either from the victim's state of helplessness or from the fact that physical or psychological force has been used (see judgment no. 568, cited above). 84.     In one case, the Supreme Court stated that “force” was not only to be understood as direct violence, but could also consist of placing the victim in a situation such that she could see no other solution than to submit against her will (see judgment no. 520 of 19 July 1973, case no. 414/73). In that particular case, the perpetrator, after demonstrating his desire for close relations with the victim by his behaviour over a period of two or three days (following her and trying to hold her and kiss her), entered her room, locked the door and asked her to undress. She refused, whereupon he tried to spread her legs apart. Realising that she had no other choice, the victim opened the window and jumped, sustaining serious injury. The perpetrator was convicted of attempted rape resulting in serious injury. 85.     Legal commentators have not commented in detail on situations where coercion through force or threats may be considered to have been established, apparently taking the view that this was a matter for judicial interpretation (Al. Stoynov, Наказателно право, Особена част, 1997; A.   Girginov, Наказателно право, Особена част, 2002). One commentator has stated that the essential characteristic of rape is the victim's lack of consent and that the three sub-paragraphs of Article 152 § 1 of the Criminal Code embody different situations of lack of consent. He further notes that in previous centuries the utmost resistance by the victim was required and that that view is now outdated. Without reference to case ‑ law, he considers that what is now required is nothing more than the resistance necessary to eliminate any doubt as to the victim's lack of consent (N. Antov, Проблеми на изнасилването, 2003). 86.     Under Article 152 § 1 of the Criminal Code, rape committed by a man against a woman is punishable by two to eight years' imprisonment. At the material time, Article 157 § 1 of the Code provided for one to five years' imprisonment in cases of forced sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex. In 2002 the punishment prescribed under the latter provision was brought into line with that applicable in cases of rape under Article 152 § 1, and is now two to eight years' imprisonment. 87.     At the material time, the age of consent in respect of sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex was 16 years (Article 157 § 2 of the Code). In 2002 it was lowered to 14 years. III.     RELEVANT COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Provisions on rape in the domestic law of some European countries 88.     In the legal systems of a number of European States, rape and sexual assault are “gender-neutral” offences, whereas in other countries rape may only be committed by a man against a woman. 89.     The minimum age of consent for sexual activity in most States is 14, 15 or 16 years. In some countries, there is a different age of consent for sexual acts without penetration and for sexual acts with penetration, or different penalties depending on the age of the victim. The approaches vary significantly from one country to another. 90.     Article 375 §§ 1 and 2 of the Belgian Criminal Code (referred to by Interights), as amended in 1989, read: “Any act of sexual penetration, of whatever nature and by whatever means, committed on a person who does not consent to it shall constitute the crime of rape. In particular, there is no consent where the act is forced by means of violence, coercion or ruse or was made possible by the victim's disability or physical or mental deficiency.” 91.     Article 241 § 1 of the Czech Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961, as amended) provides: “A person who coerces another into an act of sexual penetration or a similar sexual act through violence or the threat of imminent violence or by taking advantage of the person's helplessness shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of two to eight years.” 92.     Sections 216(1) and 217 of the Danish Penal Code (referred to by the intervener) provide: “Any person who coerces [another into having] sexual intercourse by violence or under threat of violence shall be guilty of rape and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eight years. The placing of a person in such a position that the person is unable to resist shall be equivalent to violence ...” “Any person who by means of unlawful coercion (according to section 260 of this Act) other than violence or the threat of violence procures sexual intercourse for himself, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years.” 93.     Chapter 20, sections 1 and 3, of the Finnish Penal Code (as amended in 1998) provides: “Section 1: Rape (1)     A person who coerces another into having sexual intercourse by the use or threat of violence shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least one year and at most six years. (2)     A person shall also be guilty of rape if he/she takes advantage of the incapacity of another to defend himself/herself and has sexual intercourse with him/her, after rendering him/her unconscious or causing him/her to be in a state of incapacity owing to fear or another similar reason ... Section 3: Coercion into having sexual intercourse (1)     If the rape, in view of the low level of violence or threat and the other particulars of the offence, is deemed to have been committed under mitigating circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced for coercion into having sexual intercourse to imprisonment for at most three years. (2)     A person who coerces another into having sexual intercourse by a threat other than that referred to in section 1(1) shall be guilty of coercion into having sexual intercourse.” 94.     Articles 222-22, 222-23 and 227-25 of the French Criminal Code provide: “Sexual aggression is any sexual assault committed by violence, coercion, threats or surprise.” “Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, coercion, threats or surprise, shall be considered rape. Rape shall be punishable by fifteen years' imprisonment.” “A sexual offence committed without violence, coercion, threats or surprise by an adult on the person of a minor under 15 years of age shall be punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.” 95.     The following information about French case-law on rape may be gathered from the authoritative publication Juris-Classeur (2002): (i)     The words “violence, coercion, threats or surprise” are given a broad meaning in practice. For example, in one case it was stated that the fact that the victim was begging the perpetrator to stop, without further resistance, where she had previously agreed to enter his car and to be kissed by him, was sufficient to establish that there was rape (judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Division (“ Cass. crim. ”), 10 July 1973, Bulletin Criminel (“ Bull. crim .”) no. 322; Revue de Science Criminelle , 1974, p. 594, observations of Levasseur; see also, for an opposing view, Crim ., 11   October 1978, Dalloz 1979. IR, 120). The victim's refusal may be inferred from the circumstances, such as paralysing shock, as a result of which the victim could not protest or escape ( Cass. crim ., 13 March 1984, Bull. crim . no. 107). (ii)     There is “surprise” where the victim cannot freely consent because, for example, she is physically or mentally disabled ( Cass. crim ., 8 June 1984, Bull. crim . no. 226), in a particular psychological state, involving depression, fragility, or simply distress ( Cass. crim ., 12 November 1997, Juris-Data no. 2000-005087; Paris Court of Appeal, 30 March 2000, Juris-Data no. 2000-117239), or where the perpetrator used trickery to deceive the victim as to the real situation ( Cass. crim ., 14 April 1995, Juris-Data no. 1995-002034). (iii)     The courts have considered that there is always “surprise”, and therefore rape, where the victim is of such a low age as not to understand the concept of sexuality and the nature of the acts being imposed ( Cass. crim. , 11 June 1992, Bull. crim . no. 228; Limoges Court of Appeal, 5 April 1995, Juris-Data no. 1995-042693; Paris Court of Appeal, 14 November 2000, Juris-Data no. 2000-134658). In some other cases, however, it has been stated that in principle the age of the victim cannot as such, without additional elements, establish the existence of “surprise” ( Cass. crim ., 1   March 1995, Bull. crim . no. 92). 96.     The relevant part of Article 177 (Sexual coercion; Rape) of the German Criminal Code reads: “1.     Anyone who coerces another person (1)     by force, (2)     by the threat of immediate danger to life or limb, or (3)     by exploiting a situation in which the victim is defenceless and at the mercy of the actions of the perpetrator into submitting to sexual acts performed by the perpetrator or by a third person or into performing such acts on the perpetrator or on the third person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year.” 97.     Article 197 § 1 of the Hungarian Criminal Code (Law no. 4 of 1978) provides: “A person who by violent action or a direct threat to life or limb forces a person to have sexual intercourse, or uses a person's incapacity to defend himself/herself or to express his/her will to have sexual intercourse shall be guilty of a serious offence punishable by imprisonment for two to eight years.” 98.     In Ireland, section 2(1) of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 and section 9 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 (referred to by the intervener) provide: “A man commits rape if (a) he has sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of intercourse does not consent and (b) at the time he knows she does not consent or is reckless as to whether or not she is consenting.”   “It is hereby declared that in relation to an offence that consists of or includes the doing of an act to a person without the consent of the person, any failure or omission by that person to offer resistance to the act does not of itself constitute consent to that act.” 99.     Article 180 § 1 of the Slovenian Criminal Code reads: “Anyone who compels a person of the same or the opposite sex to submit to sexual intercourse by force or the threat of imminent attack on life and limb shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to ten years.” 100.     In the United Kingdom, section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (referred to by the intervener) provides: “[A] man commits rape if (a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of intercourse does not consent to it; and (b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether she consents to it.” B.     Recommendation Rec(2002)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the protection of women against violence 101.     The Committee of Ministers recommends that member States adopt and implement, in the manner most appropriate to each country's national circumstances, a series of measures to combat violence against women. Paragraph 35 of the appendix to the recommendation states that, in the field of criminal law, member States should, inter alia : “– penalise any sexual act committed against non-consenting persons, even if they do not show signs of resistance; ... – penalise any abuse of the position of a perpetrator, and in particular of an adult vis ‑ à-vis a child.” C.     The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 102.     In Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija (case no. IT-95-17/1-T, judgment of 10 December 1998), in the context of the question whether or not forced oral sexual penetration may be characterised as rape under international law, the