5.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1964 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 6.  On 14 March 1998 a 26-year-old woman, S.D., lodged a complaint with the Plovdiv police stating that she had been abducted, held captive and raped by the two applicants the previous day. 7.  On the same day, criminal proceedings for rape were instituted against a person or persons unknown. S.D. underwent a medical examination, which revealed several bruises on her head, neck, arms and knees. The doctor stated that there were no other physical marks or biological evidence from which it could be conclusively determined that S.D. had had sexual intercourse. When questioned by the investigator, S.D. explained that the applicants had forced her to accompany them into premises in Plovdiv city centre, where they had ill-treated and raped her. 8.  On 18 March 1998 S.D. was questioned again. She withdrew her initial statement, explaining that she wanted to keep her peace, that she was not feeling well and that she had personal problems. 9.  On the same day, the investigator questioned Mr Momin as a witness. Mr Momin explained that S.D. had accompanied him and the other applicant to a café in Plovdiv city centre early in the morning of 13 March 1998, but he denied having had sexual intercourse with her. He added that, as far as he knew, Mr Dimitrov had not had sexual intercourse with S.D. on that day either. Both of them had then accompanied S.D. back to her home. 10.  On 24 March 1998 Mr Dimitrov was also questioned as a witness. He stated that, on the morning of 13 March 1998, he and the other applicant had planned to go for coffee in Plovdiv city centre, that he had also decided to invite S.D., with whom he had previously had an intimate relationship, and that she had accepted the invitation. After they had entered the premises, which were being refurbished, he had had consensual sex with S.D. while Mr Momin had gone out to buy coffee nearby. Shortly afterwards, he, S.D. and Mr Momin had taken a taxi, which had dropped Mr Momin off at his workplace and S.D. at her home. 11.  On 29 January 1999 S.D. was questioned again. She stated that she had had an intimate relationship with Mr Dimitrov in the past. On 13 March 1998 she had gone with the two applicants to premises in Plovdiv city centre for a coffee, and on arriving there, they had found that the coffee machine was not working. Mr Momin had then gone out to buy three coffees. S.D. stated that while he was out, she had had consensual sex with Mr Dimitrov and that later on, after drinking the coffees brought back by Mr Momin, the three of them had taken a taxi and she had returned home. The following day, under pressure from her relatives and to take revenge on Mr Dimitrov, who had admitted to her that he was married, she had lodged a complaint with the police against him and Mr Momin. 12.  On 1 February 1999 the investigator sent the file to the district prosecutor’s office, attaching his opinion to the effect that the criminal proceedings could be discontinued in the absence of a criminal offence. 13.  On 10 March 1999 the prosecutor in charge of the investigation returned the file to the investigator for further inquiries. That order was set aside on 26 April 1999 by the Plovdiv district prosecutor’s office, which ordered the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, I.P., to carry out a number of additional investigative measures himself. 14.  On 12 April 2000 S.D. sent a letter to the prosecutor I.P. reiterating her wish to withdraw her initial statement and asking him to discontinue the proceedings. She also informed him that she was very ill and undergoing chemotherapy. 15.  On 12 May 2000 the prosecutor I.P. formally charged Mr Dimitrov with the rape of S.D. 16.  On 18 December 2000 the prosecutor I.P. asked the Plovdiv District Court to question S.D. under Article 210a § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the grounds that her testimony was of particular importance to the investigation. 17.  On 19 December 2000 at 9.40 a.m., in the presence of the prosecutor I.P., a judge of the Plovdiv District Court questioned S.D. The judge noted that Mr Dimitrov had been informed of this procedure in a letter from Plovdiv no. 4 police station. 18.  During questioning, S.D. altered her previous statement and reiterated her original version of the events, according to which she had been kidnapped, taken captive and raped by the two applicants. In particular, she stated that Mr Dimitrov had picked her up from her home on the morning of 13 March 1998 and had forced her into a taxi where Mr Momin was sitting inside. Both applicants appeared to have consumed alcohol. The taxi had dropped them off at a café that was being refurbished in Plovdiv city centre; she had tried to escape, but Mr Dimitrov had hit her on the neck and pushed her inside, where he had forced her to undress and had hit her on the head several times. She had then suffered an episode of hypoglycaemia, from which she had recovered by taking several sachets of sugar found by the two applicants. Then she had had non-consensual sex twice with Mr Dimitrov and once with Mr Momin. Afterwards, she had been taken home in a taxi paid for by the applicants. She had lodged a complaint the following day, after confiding in her family. 19.  S.D. explained that she had withdrawn her original statement because she had been threatened by Mr Dimitrov and other people close to the two applicants. Immediately after a chemotherapy session she had received a visit from a lawyer, Ms N., who had apparently been sent by the same people. The lawyer had persuaded her to sign the letter retracting her original statement and withdrawing her complaint, and the letter had then been sent to the prosecutor in charge of the investigation (see paragraph 14 above). S.D. added that she had cancer, but was feeling well. 20.  On 20 April 2001 both applicants were charged with the abduction, false imprisonment and rape of S.D. 21.  On 3 May 2001 counsel for both applicants, Mr S., requested that his clients be confronted individually with S.D. His request was rejected on 2 July 2001 by the prosecutor I.P., on the grounds that this was a non-compulsory investigative measure which, moreover, was not necessary for the establishment of the facts of the case at hand. 22.  On 25 June 2001 S.D. died of her illness. 23.  On 11 February 2002 the district prosecutor’s office drew up the indictment and committed both applicants for trial. They were accused of having abducted S.D., held her captive, issued death threats against her and raped her. 24.  The Plovdiv District Court examined the criminal case between 14 January 2004 and 21 February 2007. It decided to admit S.D.’s statement of 19 December 2000 in evidence. The record of the questioning was accordingly read out in court. The court also heard evidence from the two applicants, the three police officers who had attended to S.D. when she had lodged her complaint, the victim’s relatives and three other witnesses. In addition, it heard the opinion of a medical expert on the nature and origin of the injuries found on S.D.’s body during her medical examination on 14 March 1998. The applicants, represented by lawyers of their choosing, challenged the evidence against them, adduced evidence in their defence and sought their acquittal. 25.  In a judgment of 21 February 2007 the Plovdiv District Court found Mr Dimitrov guilty of raping S.D. and acquitted him on the other charges. He was given a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The court acquitted Mr Momin on all the charges. 26.  In the reasoning set out in its judgment, the District Court held that the only fact that could be established from the evidence gathered was that S.D. had had non-consensual sexual intercourse with Mr Dimitrov. It based that conclusion in particular on the two defendants’ statements, part of S.D.’s statement, the findings of the expert medical opinion and the statements of the other witnesses questioned. It rejected the rest of S.D.’s evidence. In that connection, the court noted that the victim had changed her account during the investigation, that it had not had the opportunity to examine her in person, that the other witnesses had portrayed S.D. in a negative light, that her statement had been given two years after the events and that it contradicted the other statements and the findings of the medical examination performed on S.D. the day after the events in question. 27.  Mr Dimitrov and the public prosecutor’s office both appealed. 28.  The Plovdiv Regional Court heard the case between 27 June and 4 July 2007. It ordered two expert medical opinions on the basis of the evidence to establish the process and causes of an episode of hypoglycaemia, and to check the accounts given by S.D. and Mr Dimitrov as to the cause of the injuries found on S.D.’s body during her initial medical examination. The applicants, represented by lawyers of their choosing, challenged the evidence against them, including the admissibility and credibility of the victim’s statement of 19 December 2000, and sought their acquittal. 29.  In a judgment of 4 July 2007 the Plovdiv Regional Court overturned the first-instance judgment and found both applicants guilty of having abducted S.D., held her captive, issued death threats against her and raped her. Mr Dimitrov was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and Mr Momin to five and a half years’ imprisonment. 30.  In the reasoning set out in its forty-four-page judgment, the Regional Court established the facts of the case as follows. At the material time S.D. had been suffering from diabetes. She was separated from her husband and lived with her son at her grandmother’s house. She knew Mr Dimitrov as she had previously had an intimate relationship with him. She also knew Mr Momin, who worked in a shop near her home. On the morning of 13 March 1998, after consuming alcohol the previous night, the two applicants had taken a taxi to S.D.’s home. Mr Dimitrov had called S.D. and she had come out of the house. He had then grabbed her by the hand, threatened her and forced her into the taxi, where the other applicant, Mr Momin, was waiting for them. The taxi had dropped them all off in front of a bar that was being refurbished in Plovdiv city centre. Mr Dimitrov, who had the keys, had opened the door and let Mr Momin in first, before pushing S.D. inside. The two applicants had then forced S.D. to undress. Mr Dimitrov had threatened her and hit her several times. S.D. had suffered an episode of hypoglycaemia, and the applicants had made her swallow the contents of several sachets of sugar. They had carried on threatening her, holding her down and beating her, and in that way had forced her to have sex with each of them. Subsequently, they had all left the premises in a taxi, which had dropped the applicants off at a restaurant and S.D. at her home. She had confided in her relatives, who had persuaded her to alert the police. During the subsequent investigation, S.D. had been threatened by Mr Dimitrov and people close to the two applicants in an attempt to make her withdraw her statement. Under pressure, S.D. had changed her version of events during the course of the investigation. She had then become seriously ill. The pressure on S.D. had increased further: she had been persuaded by a lawyer, apparently sent by Mr Dimitrov’s employer, to sign a declaration withdrawing her statement and her complaint; the declaration had then been sent to the investigating bodies. S.D. had subsequently been questioned by a judge, had retracted her original statement and had given evidence about the pressure exerted on her during the investigation. On 25 June 2001 S.D. had died. 31.  The Regional Court based its findings of fact on S.D.’s statement of 19 December 2000, the statements by the three police officers who had attended to her at the police station the day after the events and had carried out the initial investigative steps, the statement by S.D.’s husband and a certain V.M., part of the statements by the applicants and Mr Dimitrov’s employer, the findings of the site inspection report and the photographs taken in the course of the inspection, various items of documentary evidence, the findings of the initial medical examination of the victim and the two additional medical examinations, and the two psychiatric examinations of the applicants. 32.  The Regional Court devoted six pages of its reasoning to an analysis of S.D.’s statement of 19 December 2000. It accepted the statement in its entirety, finding it to be coherent, logical, precise, specific and consistent with the details emerging from the other material admitted in evidence. 33.  The Regional Court noted firstly that S.D. had had no cause to make false accusations against the applicants; it rejected as ill-founded and illogical the applicants’ accounts to the effect that S.D.’s statement had been influenced by her relatives, or even motivated by a desire for revenge or a feeling of jealousy. 34.  Next, the Regional Court found that the statement in question was credible in that it was consistent with those given by the police officers who had registered the victim’s complaint and had observed her psychological and physical state on the day after the events. It added that the statement was also consistent with the findings of the medical examinations and expert opinions and the findings noted in the site inspection report. 35.  The Regional Court further noted that, although two years had elapsed between the events and the questioning of S.D., her statement was very detailed. It found that her alteration of her version of events in the course of the investigation had been due to the pressure exerted on her by the applicants and people close to them. 36.  The Regional Court lastly noted that both applicants and two of the defence witnesses, who had close links to them, had tried to discredit S.D. by accusing her of amoral behaviour. It rejected their evidence and found that the evidence given by S.D.’s husband was credible in this respect. By describing S.D. as a caring mother and a person whose behaviour and way of life were in no way morally objectionable, the husband had, despite being separated from her, given testimony from which a positive psychological image of S.D. could be formed. 37.  Both applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. Among other things, they challenged the admissibility and credibility of S.D.’s statement of 19 December 2000. 38.  In a judgment of 7 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeals as to the establishment of the facts and the defendants’ guilt, and upheld the Regional Court’s judgment in respect of those issues. However, it decided to reduce the applicants’ sentences to five years’ imprisonment for Mr Dimitrov and four years for Mr Momin. 39.  The Supreme Court of Cassation found that the applicants’ right to participate in the questioning of S.D. on 19 December 2000 had not been violated. In particular, it noted that, although Mr Dimitrov had yet to appoint a lawyer at that time, he had been informed of S.D.’s questioning and had therefore had the opportunity to take part. With regard to Mr Momin, at that stage of the investigation he had yet to be charged and he had therefore not been entitled to participate in the questioning of S.D. 40.  The Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ arguments challenging the credibility of S.D.’s statement. It found that the Regional Court had correctly accepted the statement in its entirety after testing its credibility by comparing it with the other evidence gathered. It noted that the Regional Court had examined and rejected all the arguments casting doubt on the statement. It further held that the Regional Court had established the facts on the basis of all the evidence and that, on that basis, S.D.’s statement was “an important element, but not the only element” in establishing Mr Dimitrov’s guilt and “the main evidence” in establishing Mr Momin’s guilt.