## Facts

- M.C., a Bulgarian national born in 1980, alleged she was raped twice by two adult men when she was 14 years and 10 months old.
- On the night of July 31–August 1, 1995, she went out with the men and was driven to an isolated reservoir despite her objections.
- She alleged one man had intercourse with her in a car; she was frightened, froze, and attempted to refuse and push him away.
- The next day, at a relative’s home, she alleged the second man raped her.
- A hospital examination the following morning documented a freshly torn hymen and bruising, including a grazed neck.
- Criminal proceedings began in November 1995 but investigators repeatedly concluded there was no evidence of threats or violence.
- After additional investigation was ordered as incomplete, authorities again found insufficient evidence of force or threats.
- Proceedings were discontinued in March 1997, relying heavily on the absence of established physical resistance or attempts to seek help.
- M.C. submitted material explaining that victims, especially minors, may not physically resist due to fear or “frozen fright.”

## Issues

1. Whether Bulgaria failed to secure effective protection against rape and sexual abuse, violating the State’s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8.
2. Whether prosecutorial practice effectively requiring proof of physical resistance as a precondition to prosecution was compatible with Articles 3 and 8.
3. Whether the investigation into the applicant’s allegations met the procedural requirements of effectiveness under Articles 3 and 8.

## Decision

- The court found violations of Article 3 and Article 8.
- It held Bulgaria failed to provide effective criminal-law protection against rape through adequate investigation and prosecution.
- It ruled that a rigid insistence on proof of physical resistance risked leaving non-consensual sexual acts unpunished and undermined protection of sexual autonomy.
- It found no separate determination was necessary under Articles 13 and 14 given the findings under Articles 3 and 8.
- The applicant received just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and costs.

## Legal Principles

- States have positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 to enact and apply criminal-law measures that effectively punish rape through effective investigation and prosecution.
- Effective protection requires penalization and effective prosecution of non-consensual sexual acts, including where the victim did not physically resist.
- Consent is assessed contextually; focusing solely on physical force or resistance may be incompatible with protecting sexual autonomy and bodily integrity.
- An effective investigation must be prompt and thorough and must examine coercive circumstances and vulnerability (including the complainant’s age and psychological state), not merely visible injuries or overt violence.

## Conclusion

The court held that Bulgaria breached Articles 3 and 8 by treating physical resistance as practically necessary to proceed and by failing to conduct an effective investigation capable of assessing non-consent in light of the surrounding circumstances, particularly where the complainant was a minor.


M.C. v. Bulgaria, App. No. 39272/98 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003)