5.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1964 and 1974 respectively and live in Târgu Mureş. 6.  On 15 January 1997 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicants and two other persons and on 4 April 1997 they were indicted for trespassing, inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim and making false statements to the police. 7.  Between 13 May 1997 and 21 April 1998, the Mureş County Court adjourned the proceedings nine times pending the summoning of several witnesses requested by the prosecutor and the summoning of witnesses and examination of other evidence requested on three occasions by the applicants. 8.  On 29 May 1998 the Mureş County Court adjourned delivery of the judgment at the request of the applicants’ representatives, who asked permission to submit written pleadings. 9.  On 5 June 1998 the Mureş County Court convicted the applicants of inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim as defined in Article 183 of the Criminal Code, and trespassing, and sentenced them each to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant Ştefan Şopterean was also given a suspended sentence for insulting a police officer and causing a breach of the peace. All three applicants were ordered to pay civil damages jointly. 10.  The applicants and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the Mureş County Court. 11.  At the first hearing before the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal on 23 December 1998 the prosecutor requested that the court change the legal classification of the acts committed by the applicants to aggravated murder as defined in Article 174 taken together with Article 176 of the Criminal Code. Under those circumstances, the applicants requested an adjournment of the proceedings in order to prepare their defence. 12.  On 3 February 1999 the Court of Appeal heard all the parties in the trial and decided to adjourn delivery of the judgment to 18 February and subsequently to 4 March 1999. 13.  On 4 March 1999 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and sent the case back to the first-instance court for a retrial on the merits. 14.  Between 11 May and 19 October 1999, the Mureş County Court adjourned the proceedings seven times on account of the absence of the civil party and pending the summoning of several witnesses requested by the prosecutor. 15.  At a hearing on 16 November 1999 the Mureş County Court heard the applicants’ submissions on the prosecutor’s request to change the classification of the crimes charged. The applicants’ lawyers asked the court to reject that request and to adjourn delivery of the judgment in order for them to submit written observations. The court adjourned delivery of the judgment to 3 December and subsequently to 10 December 1999. Written observations on behalf of the applicants were submitted to the case-file before the delivery of the judgment. 16.  On 10 December 1999 the Mureş County Court, after a thorough analysis of all the evidence contained in the file, rejected the prosecutor’s request for the reclassification of the acts committed by the applicants and upheld their previous conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim as defined in Article 183 of the Criminal Code, and trespassing. The amount of the civil damages the applicants were ordered to pay jointly was increased. 17.  Appeals by the prosecutor and the applicants against the above‑mentioned judgment were allowed by the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal, which, on 16 May 2001, decided to send the case back for a new retrial on the merits. 18.  Between 23 October 2001 and 17 September 2002, the Mureş County Court adjourned the proceedings eleven times on account of the absence of the applicants’ lawyers on three occasions, pending the summoning of several witnesses requested by the applicants on one occasion and by the prosecutor during the rest of the hearings. 19.  On 15 October 2002 the County Court heard submissions by the parties on the prosecutor’s request for a change of the legal classification from a crime defined in Article 183 into a crime defined in Articles 174‑176 (a) of the Criminal Code. The court further decided to adjourn the proceedings in order to allow the applicants to submit written observations on the issue. 20.  At an additional hearing on 12 November 2002 the applicants’ representatives again submitted their defence orally, and subsequently made submissions in writing, on the issue of the change of the legal classification of the crimes. The County Court decided to adjourn delivery of the judgment to 22 and subsequently to 29 November 2002. 21.  By an interlocutory judgment of 29 November 2002 the County Court decided to change the legal classification of the crimes allegedly committed by the applicants to aggravated murder as defined in Articles 174-176 (a) of the Criminal Code and ordered psychiatric assessments of the applicants, as defined by law for persons charged with murder. Three more adjournments were subsequently ordered by the court in the absence of those psychiatric assessments. 22.  At a hearing on 15 April 2003 the change of legal classification of the charges against the applicants was again discussed in the presence of all the parties before the court. Delivery of the judgment was adjourned to 22 April 2003. 23.  On 22 April 2003 the Mureş County Court decided to change back the legal classification of the crimes and convicted the applicants of inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim, as defined in Article 183 of the Criminal Code, and trespassing. The three-year sentence was upheld. The amount of the civil damages was increased. The rest of the provisions of the judgment of the Mureş County Court of 10 December 1999 remained unchanged. 24.  The prosecutor appealed against that decision. 25.  On 23 October 2003, after two adjournments of the case, the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 22 April 2003 delivered by the Mureş County Court. 26.  On 17 June 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed an appeal by the prosecutor on points of law and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal. 27.  On 19 November and 17 December 2004 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings on account of the absence and lack of preparation of the applicants’ lawyers. 28.  At a hearing on 14 January 2005 before the Court of Appeal the parties made submissions on the prosecutor’s reasons for appeal, namely the request for a reclassification of the crimes committed by the applicants. The applicants’ lawyers requested the court reject the request as it was not supported by evidence and it was obvious from the body of evidence collected that the applicants had not intended to take the life of the victim. The Court of Appeal decided to adjourn the delivery of the judgment first to 26 January and subsequently to 28 January 2005, in order for the applicants’ lawyers to submit written observations. 29.  On 28 January 2005 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal decided to reopen the proceedings on the merits of the appeal since no consensus could be reached between the three judges sitting on the case. 30.  On 8 April 2005 the Court of Appeal again heard the parties’ submissions on the issue of changing the legal classification of the acts committed by the applicants and adjourned delivery of the judgment for ten days. 31.  On 19 April 2005 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal convicted the applicants of the crime of aggravated murder as defined in Articles 174 and 176 (a) of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to sixteen years’ imprisonment. The other provisions of the judgment delivered on 22 April 2003 by the Mureş County Court were upheld. 32.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment. 33.  On 30 June and 15 September 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice adjourned the proceedings on account of the absence and lack of preparation of the applicants’ lawyers. 34.  On 27 October 2005, in the presence of the applicants, their lawyers submitted their defence before the court with respect to the change of the legal classification of the crimes charged. The applicants were also heard by the court. They stated that they agreed with their lawyers and that they regretted committing the crime. Delivery of the judgment was adjourned to 9 November 2005. 35.  On 9 November 2005 the High Court of Justice and Cassation allowed the applicants’ appeals on points of law and convicted them of the crime of murder as defined in Article 174 of the Criminal Code. The applicants were sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. The rest of the provisions of the judgment delivered on 22 April 2003 by the Mureş County Court were upheld.