M.C. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 27 for such penetration to be unlawful (In the Interest of M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266, 1277 (N.J. 1992)).” 145. Historically, a number of States required a rape victim to display the “utmost resistance”. Today, that requirement has been rejected. Only two States continue to require a sexual assault victim to display “earnest” resistance (Alabama and West Virginia); however, they do not require her to resist if she reasonably believes that resistance would be futile or would result in serious bodily injury (Richards v. State, 457 So.2d 893 (Alabama, 1985) – earnest resistance proved by victim's pleas to put her down and stop). 146. Increasingly, courts in the United States are taking into account relevant social science data indicating that sexual assault victims react in unpredictable ways under conditions of psychological and physical abuse. In 1992, for example, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, when rejecting the resistance requirement for a sexual assault conviction, referred to “empirical research” to discredit “the assumption that resistance to the utmost or to the best of the woman's ability was the most reasonable or rational response to rape”. Indeed, rapists often employ subtle coercion or bullying when this is sufficient to overcome their victims. In most cases of rape against children, violence is not necessary to obtain submission. Courts are also recognising that some women become frozen with fear at the onset of a sexual attack and thus cannot resist (People v. Iniguez, 872 P.2d 1183, 1189 (California, 1994)). (vi) Other legal systems 147. Interights also submitted analyses of the relevant law in Australia, Canada and South Africa, concluding that lack of consent was the defining element of rape and sexual abuse in those countries and that proof of use of physical force by the perpetrator or of physical resistance by the victim was not required. B. The Court's assessment 1. General approach (a) The existence of a positive obligation to punish rape and to investigate rape cases 148. Having regard to the nature and the substance of the applicant's complaints in this particular case, the Court finds that they fall to be examined primarily under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. 149. The Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their