4 P.M. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT gather any new evidence in view of the period of time which had elapsed since the events. 26. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 20 April 2004 the Stara Zagora District Court quashed the decree of 29 March 2004 and resumed the proceedings in respect of Mr T.Z. It found that the district prosecutor should have ordered witness confrontations. 27. On 30 April 2004 the district prosecutor referred the case back to the investigator for further examination. 28. In the period from 7 to 11 June 2004 the investigator carried out four witness confrontations. 29. A second psychiatric and psychological report was submitted in respect of the applicant on 22 June 2004. It confirmed that she had been able to understand the events of 29 March 1991 and that she had not been able to effectively resist the mental and physical violence against her. It was unlikely that the applicant had testified under the influence of her parents. 30. On 9 June 2004 the investigator ordered an expert examination of the clothes allegedly worn by the applicant on the day of the incident, as well as of other items. Several expert reports were prepared in the period from 16 to 22 June 2004. 31. On 25 June 2004 the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to Mr T.Z. On the same date the investigator concluded the investigation and referred the file to the district prosecutor with the recommendation that Mr T.Z. should be tried for attempted rape. (f) The second termination of the criminal proceedings and their resumption 32. On 19 July 2004 the district prosecutor once again terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. for lack of direct evidence. 33. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 25 August 2004 the Stara Zagora regional public prosecutor’s office upheld the decree of 19 July 2004. The applicant appealed further. 34. In a decree of 21 September 2004 the Plovdiv appeals public prosecutor’s office quashed the decrees of 25 August 2004, 19 July 2004 and 30 September 2003 (see paragraph 24 above) and referred the case back to the district prosecutor for further investigation. The district prosecutor was ordered to monitor the case and see to the lawful and timely completion of the investigation within two months. The decision further stated that the applicant’s account of the events had been corroborated by numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence and that the prescription period for prosecuting Mr D.I. had not expired because there was evidence of complicity between the two accused which affected the legal characterisation of the charges. 35. On 5 October 2004 the district prosecutor referred the case back to the investigator with instructions to gather additional evidence within thirty days. On 8 November 2004 this deadline was extended by thirty days.