5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Tiszalúc. 6.  On 4 September 2010 a family feast took place at a private house in Tiszalúc. It involved the applicant – who is of Roma origin – and another fifty people. After a first visit at 8.30 p.m. without any incident, at about 9.30 p.m. several police officers returned to the house, demanding that the music be turned down. Those present complied. Subsequently, a heated argument started between a Mr H. and a police officer. The applicant intervened, a tumultuous scene developed, and the officer called the applicant names. The officer, threatening her with arrest, grabbed her arm and pepper-sprayed her eyes. The Government submitted that this had been necessitated by the applicant’s resistance. The applicant fell over, and then six or seven male officers dragged her on the ground to, and banged her against, the police car. While being dragged, her breasts became exposed, since her pullover was torn. She suffered bruises on her neck and her eyes were burning badly. Eventually, however, the officers refrained from arresting her. 7.  The applicant then went to consult her general practitioner. The latter did not issue a medical certificate, but arranged for the applicant to be transferred to the County Hospital, where she was diagnosed with an eye injury which would heal in less than eight days. 8.  On 6 September 2010 the applicant and others involved in the incident filed a criminal report against unknown police officers with the Szerencs Police Department. On 27 September 2010 the Miskolc Investigation Office discontinued the investigation, finding that the applicant and the others had been feasting loudly and had countered the police intervention in an aggressive manner and that the police measures had been proportionate. 9.  On 15 November 2010 the applicant filed an individual criminal report against unknown police officers. On 14 January 2011 Public Prosecutor Dr F. of the Investigation Office discontinued the investigation, observing that the force applied by the police had not been excessive. 10.  On the applicant’s complaint, on 28 January 2011 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office reopened the investigation. It pointed out that further witness testimonies were necessary to clarify the circumstances and the proportionality of the police intervention. Subsequently additional evidence was obtained; in particular, a video recording of the testimonies given by the applicant and the others present was admitted to the file. 11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 23 February 2011 Dr F. again discontinued the case, coming in essence to the same conclusion as before. The applicant and the others present at the party were not heard in these, the preceding or the ensuing proceedings; neither were the suspected police officers interrogated or confronted with them. It appears that the decision was based on the minutes of the testimonies, which had been given by some witnesses in the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant and her associates (see paragraphs 13 to 16 below), and which had not concerned the proportionality of the use of force by the police. 12.  On 16 March 2011 the County Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint for want of evidence, pointing out that there had been no impartial witness to the incident. 13.  Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were conducted against the applicant and other participants in the feast on charges of obstructing justice. The bill of indictment bore the signature of Dr F. 14.  The Government submitted that, in these proceedings before the Miskolc District Court, the circumstances of the case were being thoroughly examined, several witnesses were heard, and the applicant had the opportunity to state in person – and by being confronted with the impugned police officers – her position and observations, including her objections to the investigation and the prosecution proceedings. 15.  On 8 March 2012 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one year’s suspended imprisonment. Her appeal is pending. 16.  The applicant maintained that her first-instance trial was unfair and defence evidence was not given due weight. During the taking of evidence, out of the ten or so police officers who had been present at the incident, only two identified the applicant at all, and even they could not specify the role she had allegedly played in the events. The evidence against her was limited to the consideration that since she had gone to see a doctor, she (and others who had done so) must have been involved in the case. Statements of several police officers included the assertion that those who had been sprayed had obviously obstructed the police action, otherwise they would not have been sprayed. On the other hand, the applicant’s own testimony was confirmed by several witnesses; and there were two different versions of the facts, both confirmed by the same number of witnesses. The applicant asserted that, nevertheless, the statement of the police officers had carried more weight in the District Court’s eyes than that of the applicant’s family members.