M.C. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 11 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).