10 P.M. v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT hardly be regarded as having been effective and capable of leading to the proper punishment of those responsible. 67. It follows that there has been a violation of the respondent State’s procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 68. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against her aggressors had been excessive and that she had not had an effective domestic remedy in this respect. She relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 69. The Court notes that the applicant did not join the criminal proceedings against her aggressors as a civil party (see paragraph 46 above) and that therefore the proceedings at issue did not concern the determination of her civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I). The Court further notes that the applicant’s grievances concerning the protracted investigation have already been examined under Article 3 as an aspect of its effectiveness (see paragraphs 65-67 above). 70. It follows that Article 6 § 1 does not apply, and the complaints under Article 6 and, as a consequence under Article 13, are therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.