P.M. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 5 36. In a letter of 3 January 2005 the district prosecutor instructed the investigator to send him the file as soon as possible. In a note of 12 January 2005 the district prosecutor stated that he had reached an agreement with the investigator that the file would be sent by 31 January 2005. 37. A confrontation between the applicant and Mr T.Z. was carried out on 17 January 2005. 38. On 18 January 2005 the applicant was questioned before a judge. 39. On 21 January 2005 Mr D.I. and Mr T.Z. were charged with aggravated rape and attempted aggravated rape respectively, committed in complicity, and were ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings. They were questioned on the same day. 40. A confrontation between the applicant and Mr D.I. was carried out and two witnesses were questioned before a judge between 24 and 26 January 2005. 41. An expert report concerning a tear in the jeans allegedly worn by the applicant on the date of the incident was submitted on 31 January 2005. 42. The results of the preliminary investigation were communicated to Mr D.I. and Mr T.Z. on 2 and 3 February 2005 respectively. 43. On 9 February 2005 the investigator concluded the investigation and referred the file to the district prosecutor with the recommendation that Mr D.I. and Mr T.Z. should be tried on the charges. 3. The trial 44. An indictment against the two accused was filed with the Stara Zagora District Court on 22 February 2005. 45. Two hearings scheduled for 14 April and 22 June 2005 were postponed because one of the accused and the lawyer of the other accused had fallen ill. 46. A hearing was held on 11 July 2005. The applicant joined the proceedings as a private prosecutor. She did not bring a civil action. 47. On 12 October and 30 November 2005 the District Court held hearings. The defendants did not plead the statute of limitations but asked the court to pronounce a judgment. 48. In a judgment of 30 November 2005 the District Court convicted Mr D.I. of aggravated rape but relieved him from liability and punishment. It reasoned that although Mr D.I. had not pleaded the statute of limitations, the latter was nevertheless an absolute obstacle to his punishment. It further convicted Mr T.Z. of attempted aggravated rape and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. It found that the long lapse of time since the rape represented a mitigating factor which must be taken into account in determining his punishment. The court acquitted the two accused of the complicity charges. 49. Upon appeals by the applicant, the district prosecutor and Mr T.Z., on 20 October 2006 the Stara Zagora Regional Court upheld the judgment