5.  The applicants were born in 1944, 1970 and 1946 respectively, and live in Sofia. 6.  On 10 January 1997 a political rally took place in front of the Parliament building in Sofia, continuing until well after midnight. At one point, the rally turned violent and some protesters broke into the building. The police used force in order to disperse them. 7.  At about 3 a.m. on 11 January 1997 the applicants, who were all in the first and second applicants’ flat, not far from the Parliament building, went outside to see what was happening, as they had heard on the radio that there had been some violence. They saw a group of police officers on the street armed with guns, batons, shields and helmets, who were running towards them. 8.  The applicants hurried back into the first and second applicants’ apartment building, locking the front door after them. The police officers broke in and two of them chased the applicants to the top floor where they started beating them with batons. After several minutes they left. 9.  As the applicants were too scared to go outside again, they waited until morning before going to see a doctor. The three of them had wounds to their heads and bruises on their backs and arms. The first and second applicants had their head wounds stitched and the third applicant, who had a broken finger, had his hand fixed with a splint and bandaged. 10.  On 22 January 1997 the applicants were examined by forensic doctors. It was established that the first applicant had three head wounds, one of which had been treated by a surgeon, and numerous bruises on the back, left shoulder and left arm. The second applicant had a head wound and the third applicant had a broken finger and bruises on the neck and the right arm. The doctors found that the applicants’ injuries were the result of having been beaten with hard objects, and could have been inflicted at the time and in the way the applicants alleged. 11.  On 22 and 23 January 1997 the first and second applicants lodged a complaint about the incident with the National Investigation Service, supported by copies of their medical records. 12.  On 20 January 1997, upon a request by the mayor of Sofia and instructions from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation in respect of the actions of the police during the rally. 13.  During the course of the proceedings the prosecutors interviewed all the police officers who had been on duty during the rally and more than four-hundred participants. Several members of parliament and other politicians who had been inside the Parliament building during the rally were also interviewed. The prosecution collected documentary evidence, photos and video recordings. 14.  On 9 November 1999, a prosecutor from the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office decided that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued. He observed that around 1 a.m. on 11 January 1997, when the tensions in front of Parliament had escalated, the police had injured participants in the rally using their batons. However, the individual perpetrators could not be identified. In addition, it appeared that the police had acted in self-defence and with the aim of defending the life, physical integrity and possessions of others. No evidence had been collected to suggest that the officers had the authority of their superiors to use force. 15.  A list of eighty-five participants reported to have sustained injuries during the rally was attached to the above decision; it contained the names of the first and second applicants, but not that of the third applicant. 16.  The decision did not mention the specific circumstances in which the applicants had sustained their injuries. 17.  Upon an appeal by the first and second applicants, on 11 July 2000 a prosecutor from the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings. 18.  It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that that decision was not sent to the relevant court for judicial control, as provided for in the legislation at the time. The applicants submitted that they did not receive any information regarding the investigation after the decision of 11 July 2000. 19.  In the meantime, on 13 November 1997 the three applicants brought a tort action against the Ministry of the Interior under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 33 below). They sought non-pecuniary damages for the suffering and humiliation caused to them during the incident of 11 January 1997. 20.  Between 6 February 1998 and 14 March 2000 the Sofia District Court held at least twelve hearings, four of which were adjourned due to improper service of the summons. 21.  Meanwhile, on 23 March 1999 the applicants requested that three new defendants be joined to the proceedings, including the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs. 22.  In a judgment of 29 May 2000 the Sofia District Court allowed the applicants’ claim against the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs but rejected it in respect of the other defendants. 23.  On appeal, on 4 October 2001 the Sofia City Court held that the lower court had erred in applying the law and remitted the case for fresh examination. 24.  On 7 February 2002, sitting in camera, the District Court of its own motion joined the State, represented by the Minister of Finance, as a defendant. 25.  In a judgment of 28 April 2003 the Sofia District Court allowed the applicants’ claims against the State. 26.  On appeal by the Minister of Finance, in a judgment of 3 December 2003 the Sofia City Court held that the State was not the correct defendant in the case. It noted that the State could only be held responsible through the actions of its bodies, which were separate legal entities. Thus, it once again remitted the case for fresh examination. 27.  In a judgment of 22 July 2004 the Sofia District Court held that evidence had been gathered proving that the police officers had had no justification for using force against the applicants and that the latter had done nothing to provoke such a violent attack. It further held that the correct defendant in the case was the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs, and ordered it to pay each of the applicants 1,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 510 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages, plus interest and costs. 28.  The Sofia District Court established the factual circumstances as described in paragraphs 7-10 above. It based its conclusions, inter alia, on medical expert opinions about the nature and probable cause of the applicants’ injuries, and on the statements of three witnesses: the third applicant’s wife, who had been with the applicants at the time of the incident, and two neighbours who had seen the police officers break the front door of the apartment building and chase the applicants, had heard a noise that sounded like beating and groaning, and had seen blood at the scene of the incident. 29.  The above judgment was not appealed against and became final on 15 October 2004. 30.  On 3 November 2004 the applicants obtained a writ of execution to enforce the judgment of 22 July 2004. On 26 November 2004 they submitted it to the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs with a request for payment. On 6 January, 4 April and 2 October 2006 they sent further requests. 31.  At the time of the applicants’ latest communication to the Court of December 2010, the judgment of 22 July 2004 had not yet been enforced.