6 P.M. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT of 30 November 2005 in respect of Mr D.I. This part of the judgment was not subject to appeal and became final. 50. The Regional Court further terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. as time-barred, finding that the prescription period for his prosecution had expired meanwhile. 51. On 18 May 2007 the applicant’s lawyer was informed of the judgment and of the applicant’s right to appeal against the termination of the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. The applicant did not appeal. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 52. Pursuant to the 1974 Criminal Procedure Code, in force at the relevant time and until 2006, as well as the constant case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the courts had to terminate criminal proceedings upon expiry of the statutory period of limitation. Nevertheless, the accused could request their continuation (Article 21). In such a case, the court could find him guilty but could not punish him (Article 303). THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION 53. The applicant complained that the investigation into the sexual offences of which she had been a victim had been ineffective, and that she had not had an effective domestic remedy in this respect. She relied on Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. 54. Having regard to the nature and the substance of the applicant’s complaints in the present case, the Court considers that the proper legal characterisation of the complaints is the procedural limb of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, which read: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 8 § 1 “Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ...”