74. Based on these observations, the EHR Court has considered that “any rigid approach to the prosecution of sexual offences, such as requiring proof of physical resistance in all circumstances, risks leaving certain types of rape unpunished and thus jeopardising the effective protection of the individual's sexual autonomy” 144. Thus, the EHR Court established that the obligations of the Member States relating to Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and right to physical integrity) and 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention require the criminalization of any non-consensual sexual act, even in the absence of physical resistance on the part of the victim. 145 Once this parameter was established, the Court went on to evaluate the Bulgarian legislation and concluded that it did not contemplate the criminalization of every nonconsensual act and that the State had not demonstrated that its judicial power interpreted it in a broad sense. 146 In the case, it was recorded that the authorities adopted stereotypical and discriminatory points of view by demanding evidence of violence, resistance or shouting, 147 with the EHR Court elaborating then parameters for the conduct of the authorities in cases of violations: (…) it appears that the prosecutors did not exclude the possibility that the applicant might not have consented, but adopted the view that in any event, in the absence of proof of resistance, it could not be concluded that the perpetrators had understood that the applicant had not consented (…). The prosecutors forwent the possibility of proving the perpetrators' mens rea by assessing all the surrounding circumstances, such as evidence that they had deliberately misled the applicant in order to take her to a deserted area, thus creating an environment of coercion, and also by judging the credibility of the versions of the facts proposed by the three men and witnesses called by them (…). The Court considers that, while in practice it may sometimes be difficult to prove lack of consent in the absence of “direct” proof of rape, such as traces of violence or direct witnesses, the authorities must nevertheless explore all the facts and decide on the basis of an assessment of all the surrounding circumstances. The investigation and its conclusions must be centred on the issue of non-consent. That was not done in the applicant's case. The Court finds that the failure of the authorities in the applicant's case to investigate sufficiently the surrounding circumstances was the result of their putting undue emphasis on “direct” proof of rape. Their approach in the particular case was restrictive, practically elevating “resistance” to the status of defining element of the offence. The authorities may also be criticised for having attached little weight to the particular vulnerability of young persons and the special psychological factors involved in cases concerning the rape of minors 148. 75. The study carried out by the ECHR in this case and its conclusions served as substance to establish the obligations of the States parties to the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (or "Istanbul Convention") of 2011 in relation to the classification of sexual crimes, whose article 36 incorporates the standard of consent reflected in the Judgment: (1) Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conducts are criminalised: (a) engaging in non-consensual vaginal, anal or oral penetration of a sexual nature of the body of another person with any bodily part or object; (b) engaging in other non-consensual acts of a sexual nature with a person; (c) causing another person to engage in non-consensual acts of a sexual nature 144 145 146 147 148 Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., para. 166 para. 170, 173. para. 179. para. 180-3. 25