5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  On 16 March 1998 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a third party, I.L., accusing him of aggravated theft, rape and unlawful deprivation of liberty. She alleged that on the night between 14 and 15 March 1998, I.L. had entered her lodgings and repeatedly hit her, threatened to kill her if she did not give him the money she owed him and other assets, and raped her. She claimed that the violence and threats had started at about 7.30 p.m. on 14 March 1998 and lasted until 4 a.m. the next day. She also claimed that when he had left, I.L. had taken with him 250 German Marks and 100 American Dollars (USD), a travelling bag, two leather jackets, as well as the original documents of a building belonging to her. 7.  As evidence of the physical violence to which she had been subjected, the applicant presented a medical certificate issued on 16 March 1998 by the Mina Minovici National Institute of Forensic Medicine. The certificate stated that she had traumatic lesions that could have been caused by blows with a hard object and that she would need at least eight to nine days of medical care to recover. The certificate made no mention of rape. 8.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant gave a written statement. On 2 April 1998 she gave a supplementary statement by which she added a civil complaint to her initial criminal complaint. 9.  On 8 April 1998 the prosecutor started a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations against I.L. concerning aggravated theft and unlawful deprivation of liberty. 10.  On the same day I.L. was arrested and remanded in custody for thirty days. On 4 May 1998 the County Court extended his detention for another thirty days. On 6 June 1998 the court decided not to further extend I.L.’s detention and ordered his release from prison. 11.  The investigators searched I.L’s home, but only found the documents of the building. 12.  I.L. was questioned by the prosecutor on 8 and 9 April and 20 October 1998. He stated that the applicant had borrowed USD 17,000 from him on 25 August 1996 and that she had refused to return the money. He claimed that she had lodged the criminal complaint so that he would not ask for reimbursement of the loan. As regards the documents belonging to the applicant found at his home, he contended that they had been given to him by the applicant. 13.  On 6 and 9 April 1998 the prosecuting authorities heard a witness, D.B., a common friend of I.L. and the applicant. D.B. stated that he had borrowed USD 12,000 from I.L. and had also been threatened and held against his will by the latter in 1997 in order to make him return the money. 14.  On 2, 6, 28 and 29 April 1998 the prosecutor took statements from seven witnesses proposed by the applicant. Most of them had not been present at the events but had seen the traces of violence on the applicant. 15.  On 28 May 1998 D.P.S., I.L.’s friend, gave a statement according to which I.L. had spent the whole evening of 14 March 1998 with her. Moreover, at about 8 p.m. R.C. had paid them a visit and at about 10.30 p.m. I.L. had had a telephone conversation with A.M.I. 16.  R.C. and A.M.I. confirmed the visit and the telephone conversation with I.L. in their statements before the investigating authorities. 17.  On 15 May, 9 June and 20 October 1998, the applicant was invited to take part in a confrontation with I.L. She refused, claiming that she was afraid of I.L. 18.  The applicant gave a statement on 28 May 1998. 19.  On 5 August 1999 the criminal investigation office of the Bucharest Police considered the criminal-investigation stage terminated. They proposed that I.L. be indicted on a charge of aggravated theft under Article 211 § 2 (f) of the Criminal Code (“the C.C.”) and that the investigation into the allegation of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 189 § 1 of the C.C. be discontinued. They noted that the applicant had added a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings. 20.  On 24 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court rejected the proposal and remitted the case for additional investigation. It held that the evidence was not sufficient because the investigation had not been performed thoroughly. It considered that one witness should be re-heard and two new witnesses heard. It also pointed out that the minutes drafted by the investigating authorities on the occasion of the confrontations were too brief. 21.  On 12 March 2001 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court referred the case back to the investigating authorities because they had returned the file without following the instructions given in its decision of 24 April 2000. 22.  On 7 February 2003 the investigating authorities sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office, proposing that the criminal investigation against I.L. be discontinued. They noted, inter alia, that the applicant had given a statement according to which she had been raped by I.L. 23.  On 17 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against I.L. It concluded that I.L. had not committed the offences as the applicant’s allegations had not been supported by any evidence. It also noted that the applicant had claimed in her statement before the prosecutor that I.L. had raped her. 24.  On 20 May 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal quashed that decision. It upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation in respect of the charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 189 of the C.C. and aggravated theft under Article 211 § 2 (f) of the C.C., but held that the legal basis for that decision was wrong. It observed that there was evidence in the file concerning the commission of the offence of “bodily injury” under Article 180 § 2 of the C.C. Therefore it referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court for it to continue the investigation in that connection. 25.  Consequently, on 11 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided to discontinue the investigation into the allegation of aggravated theft. It decided to continue the investigation with respect to the allegation of physical violence, classifying the offence as bodily injury under Article 180 § 2 of the C.C., and to investigate the allegation of threatening behaviour under Article 193 of the C.C. 26.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the file was transferred to the Bucharest District Court. It appears that a first hearing before that court was held on 16 April 2004. The applicant was assisted by a lawyer of her choice. The District Court adjourned the hearings several times because of the failure to duly notify I.L. of the hearings scheduled on 14 May, 4 and 25 June, 17 September, 8 and 29 October 2004. On 21 January 2005 the court became aware that I.L. had left the country for the United States of America (U.S.A.). 27.  On 22 April 2005 the applicant reiterated her intention to seek compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and submitted a written request indicating the amounts she sought to obtain from I.L. 28.  On the same day the Bucharest District Court heard the applicant, who maintained her previous allegations. She also stated that I.L. had raped her and that he should therefore be charged with rape as well. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court had delivered a decision on 11 August 2003 in which it had not examined the applicant’s allegations concerning the offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 189 of the C.C. Accordingly, the court referred the case back to the prosecutor’s office for the investigation of the applicant’s allegations concerning the offences of unlawful deprivation of liberty and rape. 29.  On 31 January 2006 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest District Court decided to discontinue the investigation into the allegation of rape on the ground that the offence had not been proved. It sent the case to the Bucharest District Court for analysis of the criminal complaint of bodily injury. The prosecutor’s office also pointed out that the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court had in fact examined the applicant’s allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty. 30.  The District Court adjourned the hearings of 17 March, 14 April and 19 May 2006 for failure to properly summon the applicant. 31.  On 15 August 2006 I.L.’s lawyer submitted a written statement from I.L. alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the court because the judge, L.G., who had presided over the single-judge panel of the Bucharest District Court which had delivered the decision of 22 April 2005, was again in charge of his case. On 1 September 2006 the judge asked to be withdrawn from the case. On 7 September 2006 a new single-judge panel examined the request and decided that judge L.G. could examine the case, as in her prior decision she had not examined the merits of the case. 32.  On 6 October 2006 the Bucharest District Court raised of its own motion the issue of the limitation period for criminal liability in respect of the offences of threatening behaviour and bodily injury, which had expired on 15 September 2002 and 15 September 2005 respectively. It therefore dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint. The court did not examine her civil complaint, holding that she had not added a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings. 33.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, claiming that the limitation period had expired because of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. She argued that she had lodged a criminal complaint immediately after the offences had been committed, but that it had taken six years for the first court hearing to be held. After eleven hearings the file had been sent back to the prosecutor’s office. She also claimed that after her repeated requests for and complaints about the examination of her case, the file had been registered again with the Bucharest District Court in March 2006. 34.  The appeal was dismissed as unfounded by the Bucharest County Court on 29 January 2007. The court confirmed that the limitation period had expired.