5.  The applicants, Mr Gheorghe Pastor (application no. 30911/06) and Mrs Roxana Ţiclete (application no. 40967/06) were born in 1957 and 1967 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 6.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  In December 1989 Mr Gheorghe Pastor and Mrs Roxana Ticlete's husband, among others, took part in the anti-communist demonstration in Cluj-Napoca. Following the intervention of the army to crush the demonstration, Mr Pastor suffered a bullet wound, which required months of medical treatment and which left him with a long-term physical disability. Mrs Ticlete's husband was killed. In total twenty-six people were killed during the demonstration and fifty-two others received bullet wounds. 8.  In January 1990 the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation in respect of several civilians and military officers as a result of the violent crushing of the anti-communist demonstration. The investigation was focused mainly on the role played by some of the prominent members of the former communist party and by military officers in the crushing of the demonstration. Consequently, several ballistic and forensic expert reports were made and the military prosecutors heard the victims and a number of witnesses. 9.  On 15 October 1992 the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office ordered the discontinuance of the criminal investigation in respect of the individuals suspected of organising and participating in the crushing of the anti-communist demonstration, on the ground that no unlawful acts had been committed. At the same time, however, the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office ordered that the criminal investigation continue, so that the identity of alleged “unidentified shooters” could be discovered. The applicants contested the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office order. 10.  On 22 September 1997 the Court of Cassation Military Prosecutor's Office (“the Military Prosecutor's Office”) quashed the order of 15 October 1992 and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation in respect of a member of the former communist party and the military officers who had organised and/or taken part in the crushing of the demonstration. The Court of Cassation Military Prosecutor's Office was given jurisdiction to investigate the case, and the prosecutors heard once again some of the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings. 11.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the military personnel involved in the crushing of the demonstration and subject to investigation were assigned to the military reserves. 12.  On 29 May 1998 the Military Prosecutor's Office issued an indictment and charged six individuals, in particular the former secretary of the local branch of the communist party and six military officers, with murder and incitement to murder. At the same time, the Romanian Ministry of Defence was summoned to take part in the proceedings as a civilly liable third party. 13.  On 8 June 1998 the file was lodged with the Registry of the Court of Cassation. 14.  At the first hearing of 2 November 1998 the Court of Cassation heard some of the civil parties and ordered the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the accused lacked mandatory legal representation. On 16 and 30 November the Court of Cassation heard other civil parties and decided to adjourn the hearing on account of procedural errors concerning the summoning of some of the other parties. 15.  On 25 January 1999 the Court of Cassation allowed the parties to submit oral observations in respect of an objection raised by the lawyers representing the accused concerning the lawfulness of the indictment. On the same date, the Court of Cassation decided that the file had not been lawfully referred to it and ordered the pre-trial investigation file to be returned to the Military Prosecutor's Office. 16.  On 28 June 1999 the Military Prosecutor's Office referred the file to the Court of Cassation for the second time. On the same date it dismissed an application from the lawyers representing the accused for the withdrawal of the trial judges, and decided to adjourn the hearing. 17.  On 20 September 1999 the Court of Cassation decided to suspend the hearing on the ground that the prosecutor was absent. 18.  On 18 October 1999 the Court of Cassation heard two of the accused. On the same date it ordered a forensic expert report and adjourned the hearing in respect of the rest of the accused. 19.  On 15 November 1999 three other accused were heard by the court. 20.  On 10 January, 14 February, 13 March, 17 April, 15 May and 19 June 2000 the civil parties were heard by the Court. 21.  Over the course of fifteen more hearings, held between 18 September 2000 and 25 March 2002, the Court of Cassation heard approximately sixty witnesses at a rate of between one witness per hearing (30 October and 20 November 2000, 7 May and 4 June 2001 and 25 February 2002) and nine witnesses per hearing (18 September 2000, 15 January and 12 February 2001, 14 February 2002). The court also fined on several occasions absent lawyers and witnesses. 22.  On 25 March 2002 the Court of Cassation acknowledged that a large number of witnesses from Cluj-Napoca had not attended the hearings held in Bucharest, in spite of the fact that they had been fined. Consequently, the judges of the Court of Cassation decided to travel to Cluj-Napoca in order to hear 254 witnesses chosen on the basis of the parties' submissions. 23.  In Cluj-Napoca, between 15 and 26 April 2002, the judges of the Court of Cassation heard 110 witnesses. 24.  Following the return of the judges to Bucharest, on 3 June, 30 September, 28 October and 9 December 2002, the Court of Cassation continued to hear other witnesses and to accept submissions from the parties' lawyers. 25.  On 20 January 2003 the Court of Cassation raised of its own motion the question of the judicial requalification of the acts committed by the accused to involuntary killing and negligent physical injury and allowed the parties to submit oral observations. 26.  In order to allow the lawyers representing the parties also to submit written observations, the court adjourned delivery of the judgment several times, to 3 and then to 17 February, 3 and 17 March and 2 April 2003. 27.  On 9 April 2003 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a court of first instance, acquitted two of the accused and convicted a third of murder and attempted murder and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. Three other accused were convicted of involuntary killing and causing injury by negligence, however the court found that the crimes they were accused of were time-barred. The court also ordered jointly the convicted individuals and the Ministry of Defence to pay the applicants between 150,000,000 and 200,000,000 lei (ROL) (between 4,105 euros (EUR) and EUR 5,474) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 28.  The parties appealed the judgment. 29.  On 25 October 2004 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a second‑instance court, allowed the parties' appeal and quashed the judgment of 9 April 2003, on the ground that procedural errors had been made in examining the question of the judicial requalification of the acts committed by the accused, and errors had been committed in determining the level of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awarded to the applicants. 30.  On 28 March 2005, during the second procedural cycle, the Court of Cassation, sitting as a first-instance court, proceeded to examine once again the judicial requalification of the acts committed by the accused, and allowed the parties to submit oral observations. 31.  On 23 May 2005 the Court of Cassation acquitted one of the accused and convicted the five others of murder, incitement to murder and attempted murder, and sentenced them to between eight and fifteen years' imprisonment. It also ordered those convicted and the Romanian Ministry of Defence jointly to pay Mr Gheorghe Pastor ROL 650,000,000 (EUR 18,571) and Mrs Roxana Ţiclete ROL 1,250,000,000 (EUR 35,714) in civil damages. 32.  The applicants appealed against the decision on the ground that the amount of the civil damages awarded did not entirely cover the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had sustained. 33.  By a final decision of 20 March 2006 the Court of Cassation, following a global analysis of the appeal points submitted by the applicants, rejected the applicants' appeal, on the ground that the amount of the civil damages had been awarded correctly on the basis of the adduced evidence. 34.  On 26 April and 10 May 2006 the Ministry of Defence paid the applicants the civil damages awarded by the final judgment of 20 March 2006.