P.M. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 3 15. There is no information as to whether the authorities took any steps to find the persons concerned. (d) Resumption of the proceedings and further investigation 16. In a report of 8 September 2000 a police officer stated that Mr D.I. had been found. The address specified in the report was the same as the one Mr D.I. had given in his written statement of 1991. In a statement of 8 September 2000 Mr D.I. said that he had not changed his place of residence and that he had never been summoned by the investigator. 17. On 19 December 2000 the district prosecutor resumed the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I. 18. In a letter of 26 February 2001 the investigator asked the district prosecutor to extend the period of investigation by six months, stating that the work on the case had not been completed on time because of his involvement in other cases. On 19 March 2001 the district prosecutor granted a two-month extension. 19. In a letter of 28 June 2001 the district prosecutor instructed the investigator to take urgent measures to complete the investigation, informing him that the case would be subject to special monitoring. 20. On 5 November 2002 Mr D.I. was charged with aggravated rape and was ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings against him. On 14 November 2002 he was questioned before a judge. 21. In the period between 7 November and 5 December 2002 the investigator questioned twelve witnesses, and appointed two experts to make a psychiatric and psychological assessment of Mr T.Z., Mr D.I. and the applicant, as well as a medical expert, who, on the basis of the documents in the file, confirmed the conclusions of the medical report of 29 March 1991. 22. The results of the preliminary investigation were communicated to Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I. on 4 March 2003. 23. On 6 March 2003 the investigator concluded the investigation and referred the file to the district prosecutor with the recommendation that the two accused should be put on trial. (e) The first termination of the criminal proceedings and their partial resumption 24. In a decree of 30 September 2003 the district prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of Mr D.I. as time-barred. He found that a shorter prescription period was applicable to him because he had been under age at the time of the offence. 25. In a decree of 29 March 2004 the district prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of Mr T.Z., finding that the charges against him had not been proved and that it would be practically impossible to