22 M.C. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 118. In the applicant's view, seen in the context of all the relevant facts, her clear and consistent testimony that she had begged P. to stop and had pushed him away until he had twisted her arms, and her account of the distress she had felt and of her resistance – reasonable in the circumstances – should have led to the conviction of the perpetrators if a correct interpretation of “rape”, consonant with the State's positive obligations under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, had been applied. 2. The Government 119. The Government submitted that the investigation had been thorough and effective. All possible steps had been taken: seventeen persons had been questioned, some of them repeatedly, experts in psychiatry and psychology had been appointed and all aspects of the case had been explored. The Government therefore considered that the conclusion of the national authorities that P. and A. must have acted on the assumption of the applicant's consent had been well-founded. In particular, the authorities had relied on all evidence about the events of 31 July to 1 August 1995, including information about the behaviour of the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant had gone out with P. after the events and there had been allegations by witnesses that her mother had attempted to extort money from P. and A. in return for dropping the rape allegations. 120. In the Government's submission, the facts of the case did not, therefore, concern the issue of protecting a person's integrity or ill-treatment. As a result, no positive obligations arose under Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention. 121. The Government maintained that, in any event, Bulgarian law and practice in rape cases and their application in the present case did not violate any positive obligation that could arise under the Convention. 122. Describing the domestic law and practice in their initial submissions at the admissibility stage, the Government stated that proof of physical resistance was required in cases of rape and that, moreover, in accordance with “international practice, including in France” rape was only possible between strangers, whereas the applicant knew the alleged perpetrators. 123. In their submissions on the merits, the Government corrected their earlier statements and submitted that lack of consent was an essential element of rape under Bulgarian law. Proof of lack of consent was derived from evidence demonstrating that the victim was in a state of helplessness or had been put in such a state by the perpetrator, or from evidence of physical or psychological violence by the perpetrator. The Government submitted copies of several relevant judgments of the Supreme Court. They did not dispute the reliability of the analysis of Bulgarian case-law offered by the applicant.