4.  The applicants were born in 1931 and 1958 and live in Oulu and Espoo respectively. 5.  The applicants are father and son. On 17 June 2000 they were involved in an incident in which the first applicant was attacked by a group of men. The second applicant went to his rescue. They both sustained injuries and the second applicant's camera and mobile phone were broken. 6.  The applicants filed a criminal complaint with the police on that same date. On the following day, one of the alleged attackers filed a criminal complaint against the second applicant alleging that he had kicked and hit him during the incident. 7.  On 19 June 2000 the police questioned the second applicant as an injured party. He then informed the police that he would make a claim for damages in the court proceedings. At the end of the interview the police took a brief statement from the second applicant in respect of the criminal complaint filed against him. He did not contest the alleged conduct but maintained that it had been justified. 8.  On 6 July 2000 the police questioned the first applicant as an injured party. He also informed the police about his intention to make a claim for damages in the court proceedings. 9.  On 19 March 2003 the second applicant was again questioned by the police. He was first heard as a suspect and then as a victim. 10.  On 8 July 2003 the public prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the Iisalmi District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). Charges were brought against two persons, L. and R., for robbery. R. was also charged with having physically assaulted the second applicant. The second applicant, for his part, was charged with having physically assaulted L. The applicants later joined the charges as far as they were the alleged victims. 11.  On 23 September 2003 the first applicant submitted to the court a specified claim for damages. Apparently the second applicant also filed such a claim prior to the trial. 12.  On 4 May 2005 the District Court held an oral hearing during which it received witness testimonies and written evidence. 13.  On 1 June 2005 the court issued its judgment. It found that L. and R. had used physical violence against the first applicant. They were convicted of assault and sentenced to a fine respectively. They were also ordered to pay the first applicant some EUR 400 in damages and the second applicant EUR 300 for the camera. The court further found that the second applicant had physically assaulted L. for the purpose of defending his father. As he had used more violence than had been necessary in the circumstances, he was convicted of assault and sentenced to a 30 days' conditional prison term. He was also ordered to pay damages to L. The court dismissed the charge concerning the alleged assault against the second applicant for lack of evidence. 14.  Both applicants appealed against the judgment to the Itä-Suomi Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) renewing their initial claims regarding punishment and damages, in so far as they had been rejected by the District Court. The second applicant also requested that he be acquitted or, in the alternative, exempted from punishment and liability in damages. On 18 September 2007, having held an oral hearing, the court came to the same conclusion as the District Court. It upheld the lower court's judgment giving some further reasons of its own. 15.  On 11 April 2008 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicants leave to appeal.