2 P.M. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 1. The events of 29 March 1991 6. According to the judgment of 30 November 2005 of the Stara Zagora District Court, in the afternoon of 29 March 1991 the applicant, then aged thirteen, was invited to a party at the home of Mr T.Z. There were several young people in the apartment. After some time Mr D.I., then aged seventeen, took the applicant to a separate room and threatened her, after which he raped her. Then he went out and Mr T.Z., who was twenty-one years old, entered the room. He beat the applicant and attempted to rape her but was interrupted by his mother ringing the doorbell. Mr T.Z. asked the applicant and the other guests to leave. 7. The applicant told her parents that she had been raped, and they took her to the doctor and informed the police. 8. In a medical expert report of the same date two experts of the Stara Zagora Military Medical Institute established that there was an injury to the applicant’s hymen and that she had several bruises on her head. 2. The pre-trial investigation (a) Preliminary inquiry 9. On 4 April 1991 the applicant’s mother lodged a written complaint with the police authorities against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I. 10. The police carried out an inquiry, in the course of which it took statements from the applicant, Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I. The two suspects gave their addresses. (b) Opening of criminal proceedings 11. On 27 January 1992 the Stara Zagora district prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I. 12. On 9 April 1992 Mr T.Z. was charged with attempted aggravated rape and was ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings against him. On the same day the investigator questioned him, the applicant and a witness. 13. In a letter of 10 April 1992 the investigator requested the police to establish the full names and addresses of four witnesses. (c) Stay of the proceedings 14. On 28 April 1992 the investigator established that Mr D.I. had not appeared before him, although he had been duly summoned, and that the whereabouts of certain witnesses were unknown. He proposed that the criminal proceedings be stayed. By a decree of 24 November 1992 the district prosecutor stayed the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I., on the ground that the latter’s whereabouts were unknown.