CASE OF CIORCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)
Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicants are thirty-seven Romanian nationals of Roma origin. They all live in the Apalina neighbourhood in the town of Reghin, Romania. 6. On 7 September 2006 at around 2.30 p.m. the applicant Augustin Biga and his friend C.A had a quarrel in a bar with R.O., a policeman who worked for the Mureş County police. Consequently, R.O. filed a criminal complaint against the two men, accusing them of insulting behaviour. 7. In the context of the investigation of the above-mentioned complaint, at around 4 p.m. the same day, the chief of the Mureş County police gave the order by telephone for several police officers to go to Apalina, the neighbourhood where Augustin Biga and C.A lived, in order to summon them before the prosecutor. He advised them to exercise particular caution, mentioning on the phone that it would be difficult to get there owing to a large number of people (several hundred) blocking the way armed with bats, pitchforks, axes and scythes, and that the law-enforcement authorities had been unable to secure the area. He also requested the assistance of officers from the local special forces police (Detaşamentul de Intervenţie şi Acţiuni Speciale Mureş – DIAS). According to the operation order completed by the chief of the local special forces unit on 7 September 2006, the reason for the request was “to ensure the protection of the policemen conducting an investigation for insulting behaviour towards policeman R.O.” 8. Immediately afterwards, seven special forces officers (P.Ş., C.I., V.M., M.F., H.D.M., S.P. and G.P.J.) wearing special uniforms and masks covering their faces, together with two local police officers from the Reghin Police (B.M. and M.V.) and four plain-clothes officers from the investigations department of the Mureş County police (A.M., M.M., C.R.R. and S.C.L.) left for Apalina, taking a van and two cars. 9. On 7 September 2006 around 5 p.m., on seeing the police vehicles, the applicants and other inhabitants of the neighbourhood, mostly women and children, started gathering in the street out of curiosity. 10. In order to disperse the crowd, the special forces officers threw several tear gas grenades, which sent everyone into a panic, pushing each other and running around in all directions. At that point the police officers started shooting at the running crowd while backing up their vehicles and leaving the neighbourhood. 11. According to the prosecutor’s decision of 16 July 2007 (see paragraph 51 below), shortly after the police officers arrived in the neighbourhood, the local residents started gathering and a fight broke out between them and the special forces officers, who were forced to use their weapons. The prosecutor gave details about the incident, noting that shortly after all the State agents (except the one driving the van) got out of their vehicles, they found themselves surrounded by eighty to a hundred people, who began to jostle against them and pull at their equipment. In the meantime, the police officers recognised the mother of Augustin Biga and told her they were going to summon her son for a hearing before the prosecutor. As this discussion was taking place, some of the policemen heard shouting and noticed that about a hundred Roma were attacking the special forces officers with bats, pitchforks, empty bottles and stones. 12. According to statements made by the special forces officers to the prosecutor, they initially used three defensive tear gas sprays. This only infuriated the crowd, who got even more aggressive and started to throw stones and bricks. Two of the officers then fired shots into the air. V.M. stated that since the Roma would not stop, he had fired his hunting weapon twice into the air. He was then attacked by ten people, who pulled at his clothes and hit him with sharp objects until he fell to his knees, at which point he fired rubber bullets into the crowd. The crowd then partially retreated. 13. The incident, as presented in the prosecutor’s decision, continued with the State agents attempting to retreat while the Roma, hidden behind the houses, continued to throw stones, glass bottles and other objects at them. 14. As a result of the clash, six State agents suffered injuries which required medical treatment lasting between five and fourteen days (see paragraph 53 below). 15. More than twenty-five Roma were reportedly injured and/or shot. Some of them were issued medical certificates confirming their injuries, which were considered to need between eight and forty-five days of medical treatment. 16. Ms Susana Ciorcan as well as the following twelve applicants suffered injuries confirmed by medical certificates: According to her hospital observation sheet, Ms Ciorcan was shot in the stomach and was diagnosed with the following conditions: haemorrhagic shock, peritonitis, rupture of the iliac vein, rupture of the ureter, four traumatic lesions of the small intestine, and a lesion of the terminal ileum and colon. Following the incident, she underwent surgery and remained in hospital for eight days. Her forensic medical certificate issued on 11 October 2006 stated that the shooting had endangered her life, that she required forty to forty-five days of medical treatment, and that she and her aggressor had been face-to-face. Neither of the medical documents contained information about the type of bullet which might have caused her injuries. According to his forensic medical certificate issued on 11 September 2006, he had several gunshot wounds in the right arm, left knee and left thigh, with six bullets remaining in his body. He underwent surgery on 8 September 2006 and six bullets were extracted from his wounds. He remained in hospital for three days. His injuries were considered to have been caused by rubber bullets and to require twelve to fourteen days of medical treatment. According to his forensic medical certificate issued on 19 September 2006, he had an excoriation wound on the right cheek and a gunshot wound on the right elbow, with the bullet remaining in his body. His injuries were considered to have been caused by a rubber bullet and to require eight to nine days of medical treatment. According to her forensic medical certificate issued on 19 September 2006, she was shot in the left side of the thorax and also had a gunshot wound on her back in the left thorax area. Her wounds were considered to have been caused by rubber bullets and to require eight to nine days of medical treatment. According to his forensic medical certificate issued on 5 October 2006, he was shot in the right arm and the back right side of the chest, with several bullets remaining in his body. His injuries were considered to require twenty-two to twenty-four days of medical treatment. According to his hospital observation sheet, he underwent surgery on 22 September 2006, but the doctors only managed to take out five rubber bullets from his chest. According to her forensic medical certificate issued on 8 September 2006 and hospital notes, she had multiple gunshot wounds in the right leg, with one bullet remaining in her body. Her injuries were considered to require sixteen to eighteen days of medical treatment. On 7 September 2006, she underwent surgery to have the bullet extracted. Neither of the medical documents contained information about the type of bullet which might have caused her injuries. According to his medical certificate issued by the hospital on 14 September 2006, he had gunshot wounds in the left chest and on the back of his thigh, with the bullets remaining in his body, and excoriation wounds on his right chest and arm. He underwent surgery on 13 September 2006 and several bullets were extracted. The medical document contained no information about the type of bullet which might have caused his injuries. According to her forensic medical certificate issued on 11 September 2006, she had a gunshot wound in the left side of the chest and three gunshot wounds in the left thigh, with two rubber bullets remaining in her body, and two contusions in the umbilical region. She was considered to require eleven to twelve days of medical treatment. On 8 September 2006, she underwent surgery to have the bullets extracted. According to his forensic medical certificate issued on 11 September 2006, he had a wound beneath the left eye which could have been caused by being hit with a hard object. He was considered to require three to four days of medical treatment. According to his forensic medical certificate issued on 19 September 2006, he had an excoriation wound in the left zygomatic region and several wounds and ecchymosis on the right side of the thorax and on the abdomen which could have been caused by being shot with rubber bullets. He was considered to require eight to nine days of medical treatment. According to his forensic medical certificate issued on 19 September 2006, he had a gunshot wound in the right side of the thorax, with a rubber bullet remaining in his body. He was considered to require eight to nine days of medical treatment. According to her forensic medical certificate issued on 19 September 2006, she had a gunshot wound and an excoriation wound on the interior side of the lower part of the right leg, which may have been caused by a rubber bullet. She was considered to require eight to nine days of medical treatment. According to the certificate issued by the hospital on 9 September 2006 he had a contusion on the left shoulder. 17. The following twenty-two applicants: Ştefan Bidi, Margareta Biga, Iosif Biga Snr, Iosif Biga Jr, Liviu Bucunea Jr, Etelka Capo, Agneta Csiki, Edith Csiki (Biga), Lia Gabor, Ana-Narcisa Gorcs, Ladislau Horvath, Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga), Susana Kalanyos, Petru Kalanyos Snr, Ana Lingurar, Ancuţa Maria Moldovan, Violeta Pusuc, Edith Racz (Biga), Cornelia Simion (Biga), Ianos Ştefan, Ana Tina Snr and Ana Tina Jr declared to the national prosecutor that they had suffered various injuries, but did not produce any medical certificates to corroborate their claims. The remaining three applicants: Sonia Biga, Augustin Biga and Sorin Ciorcan, only complained about the injuries suffered by their mother, Susana Ciorcan. 18. On 7 September 2006 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Mureş County Court (“the Mureş prosecutor’s office”) launched a criminal investigation against the special force officers for the attempted first degree murder of Susana Ciorcan, under Article 20 in conjunction with Articles 174 and 175(i) of the Criminal Code. 19. The investigation began with an examination of the crime scene the next day. In the prosecutor’s report it was noted that: “The crime scene has suffered numerous alterations, namely the removal of the damaged vehicles, the bullets and bullet cases used by the State agents, as well as their other weapons, the transport of all of the victims to hospital ... finding the area has been cleaned to some extent compared to the rest of the street.” The report further stated that several traces of blood and holes were found on the ground, doors and walls of the houses surrounding the crime scene. The holes found on the houses were between 28 and 60 cm from the ground. Several clothes and other items stained with blood or presenting possible bullet holes were seized as evidence. According to the same report, the following materials were handed over to the investigators by the victims: three tear gas sprays, eleven STAR-70mm-RB-15 cartridge cases and nineteen 9x19-86-325 cartridge cases. Four other unidentified cartridge cases and two metal bullets were also collected. The objects allegedly used by the crowd to attack the policemen could not be found. In addition, a pitchfork and a 12 mm hunting gun were seized from the headquarters of the Reghin police. Fingerprints were also collected from the vehicles used by the police officers. 20. On 11 and 19 September 2006 the prosecutor ordered expert examinations of the guns used by the State agents during the incident, their cartridge cases and bullets, as well as the clothes and other items gathered from the crime scene. A first report issued on 14 September 2006 concluded that the eleven STAR-70mm-RB-15 cartridge cases had been fired from the hunting gun. The report did not state whether the eleven cartridge cases came from rubber bullets, but indicated that the bullets used in order to perform the tests had been hunting bullets. A second expert report issued on 10 October 2006 concluded that the other twenty-three cartridge cases had been fired from three of the pistols belonging to the special forces officers. However, with respect to the two metal bullets found at the scene of the incident it was noted that no resources were available to establish from which gun they had been fired. 21. Medical documents were also collected from the local hospital and requested from the Forensic Institute in respect of some of the Roma victims and all the police officers involved. 22. On 3 October 2006 twenty-seven victims of the incident filed a criminal complaint against the special forces officers for abusive conduct and causing bodily harm, a complaint which was joined to the pre-existing investigation. They were the applicants Liviu Bucunea Jr, Ancuţa Maria Moldovan, Mihai Moldovan Jr, Ana Tina Snr, Ana Tina Jr, Agneta Csiki, Lia Gabor, Ana-Narcisa Gorcs, Traian Kovacs, Costel Ciorcan, Lajos Panta, Ştefan Bidi, Etelka Capo, Violeta Pusuc, Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga), Susana Kalanyos, Edith Csiki (Biga), Cornelia Simion (Biga), Margareta Biga and eight other victims. 23. A report drafted on 6 October 2006 by an officer from the Mureş County police contained a list of the steps undertaken in the investigation to that date as well as a list of “questions to ask the Roma”. The relevant parts read as follows: “Did the gypsies know that the police officers and DIAS forces were coming to Apalina and why? Were the gypsies gathered near the houses of the two wanted criminals before the police officers arrived? How many gypsies were there?” The report also mentioned that, following a check of the census, it had been possible to identify the inhabitants of the neighbourhood who took part in the incident, some of whom had a criminal record. 24. On an unspecified date the criminal records of the Roma who had made statements to the prosecutor (see paragraph 25 below) were checked and the information was adduced to the investigation file. One of them had two previous convictions for theft and another had two convictions for robbery. 25. On 17 October 2006 eighteen of the applicants, Susana Ciorcan and three other victims made statements to the prosecutor. Their statements were consistent, in that they all said that on seeing the police vehicles they had come out of their houses with their spouses and children out of curiosity. While normal discussions had been taking place between Susana Ciorcan and the policemen, the special forces officers had started to spray the crowd with tear gas and throw tear gas grenades at them and as everybody ran around trying to protect their children and go back inside their houses, the same officers had started to shoot at them. 26. In her statement, Susana Ciorcan said that while she had been in her courtyard giving information to the plain-clothes officers about the whereabouts of her son, a “fight broke out between the masked men and the Roma” and a tear gas grenade had fallen by her feet. The five officers that she had been talking to ran away and one of them had shouted “Do not shoot!” and she had turned to run and hide inside her house. At that moment she had been shot in the back and lost consciousness. 27. In their statements, the applicants Ana Maria-Paula Bidi, Denes Biga, Erika Biga, Iosif Biga Snr, Iosif Biga Jr, Ladislau Biga, Rozalia Bucunea, Carol Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga), Ladislau Horvath, Petru Kalanyos Snr, Petru Kalanyos Jr, Ana Lingurar and Lela Potra declared that they were thereby submitting complaints against the special force officers who ill-treated them and claiming compensation from them. 28. On 23 October 2006 the four officers from the investigations department of the Mureş County police were questioned by the prosecutor as witnesses. Their statements were practically identical, saying that while they had been talking to Susana Ciorcan, they had heard noise coming from where they had left their vehicles and when they had turned round they had seen: “...several armed individuals (around 100-150 ethnic Roma), attacking the DIAS fighters with bats, pitchforks, bottles, stones and other objects”. A.M., M.M. and C.R.R. declared that when they had left for the Apalina neighbourhood, they had not been aware that the “Roma from this neighbourhood might commit violent acts”. M.M., C.R.R. and S.C.L. further declared that they had neither assaulted nor been physically assaulted by the “ethnic Roma”. 29. On 10 January 2007 the special forces officers made statements to the prosecutor. They all declared that they had been forced to use their guns in order to defend themselves and their colleagues. 30. Officer P.Ş., head of the special forces unit, stated: “Immediately upon our arrival in the neighbourhood, a large number of Roma ethnic people started to gather in their yards, on the side of the road and behind us; they headed towards us after we parked our vehicles ... These people initially only verbally attacked [us]... Shortly afterwards, [they] started to push our colleagues from the judiciary [investigations department], who were in plain clothes and were not carrying weapons. At that moment, seeing that [the officers] could not fulfil the purpose of their operation ... I considered that we must immediately ensure their protection and then leave the neighbourhood ... Because the use of sprays and sticks had no effect on the people in the area, who, on the contrary, became more aggressive and continued attacking us and throwing stones and bricks, me and two colleagues fired warning shots in the air with our pistols ... V.M., who had a rifle with rubber bullets, started using it. I did not see when he started shooting, I just heard the first shots.” 31. Officer V.M. stated in his testimony: “Immediately upon our arrival, a large number of gypsies started to gather around us; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [investigations department] were surrounded, and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies, [who were] pulling their clothes, our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles, each of us was surrounded by a few furious gypsies, who started assaulting us ... I was equipped with the following: a tear gas spray, a double-barrel hunting rifle which had rubber bullets, and a 9 mm Glock pistol with nineteen rounds of live ammunition, which I didn’t use ... I loaded my hunting rifle with two bullets and shouted ‘Freeze, police! We will use firearms!’ The shouting had no effect so I fired two shots in the air. These also had no effect on the furious crowd. My colleagues also fired their pistols with live ammunition in the air ... At one point, on hearing shouting coming from the upper side of the street, and seeing that stones were being thrown from that direction, I went to the crossroads and I saw a big crowd of gypsies coming towards us. I reloaded the gun with the intention of firing another shot in the air. At that moment, I was attacked by a group of around ten people, who were coming towards me. They started hitting me ... I was then hit in the head by a stone thrown by the group of people coming down the street ... After being hit, I fell to my knees and pulled the trigger of the gun, firing in the direction of the crowd.” 32. Officer C.I. said in his statement that: “... I saw my colleague P.J., who appeared to have been wounded, lying on a fence. Because I had heard my colleagues warn the assaulters to back up or weapons would be used, I took out the pistol and in order to ensure that I had enough space and time to help my injured colleague, I fired four shots in the air ... I personally only saw our commander Mr P.Ş. fire several shots in the air ... As far as I noticed, all shots had been fired in the air.” 33. Officer S.P. stated that he did not fire his gun saying that: “Immediately upon our arrival, a large number of gypsies started to gather around us; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [investigations department] were surrounded, and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies, [who were] pulling their clothes, our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles, each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies, who started assaulting us ... The gypsies were becoming more and more nervous ... We started defending ourselves, first using tear gas spray ... We then threw one or two grenades, also filled with tear gas ... We used our sticks ... I also had a Makarov pistol on me with live ammunition, but I did not manage to pull it out ... As far as I understood it, our boss and two other colleagues took out their guns and fired some shots in the air, in order to discourage the aggressors ... One of our colleagues, V.M., had a “hunting” type rifle with rubber bullets. This gun was used to fire several shots into the crowd ... After around three minutes, I managed to regroup with my colleagues in formation and make way for the two Logans [cars], which managed to retreat from the street ... I got behind the wheel of our vehicle and turned to leave the area.” 34. Officer H.D.M. also stated that he did not use his gun declaring: “Immediately upon our arrival, a large number of gypsies started to gather around us; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [investigations department] were surrounded, and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies, [who were] pulling their clothes, our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles, each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies, who started assaulting us ... The gypsies were becoming more and more nervous ... We started defending ourselves, first using the tear gas spray ... We then threw one or two grenades, also filled with tear gas ... We used our sticks ... I also had a Glock pistol on me with live ammunition, but I did not manage to pull it out ... As far as I understood it, our boss and two other colleagues took out their guns and fired some shots in the air, in order to discourage the aggressors ... One of our colleagues, V.M., had a “hunting” type rifle with rubber bullets. This gun was used to fire several shots into the crowd. After around four minutes, I managed to regroup with my colleagues in formation and make way for the two Logans [cars], which managed to retreat from the street ... ” 35. From officer G.P.J.’s testimony, it appeared that he too did not fire his gun: “Immediately upon our arrival, a large number of gypsies started to gather around us; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [investigations department] were surrounded, and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies, [who were] pulling their clothes, our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles, each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies, who started assaulting us ... I was immediately hit with a bat in the legs and then with a stone or brick in the head ... I fell to the ground ... A few moments later, I effectively lost consciousness and I cannot say what happened to my colleagues next ...” 36. Officer M.F. similarly declared that he did not use his gun. He further stated that: “Because our warnings had no effect and we continued to be attacked, I heard several gunshots and I saw my colleague C.I. next to me, firing a few shots in the air with his pistol ... I saw my other colleague, V.M., the only one of us carrying a rifle and he also fired shots in the air ... As far as I noticed, all the shots had been fired in the air.” 37. On 16 January 2007 the prosecutor decided to terminate the attempted first-degree murder investigation, with a decision not to bring charges against the State agents. He held that upon the arrival of the police officers in the neighbourhood, people started gathering in the street and “... a fight broke out between them and the DIAS unit”. The decision mentioned that according to the agents’ statements, on 7 September 2006 they had used “paralysing sprays and grenades, bats and firearms, discharged into the air in order to discourage the crowd”; V.M. had used a hunting gun with rubber bullets, shooting both into the air and at the crowd. Several people had been injured, both agents and local residents, but the injuries had not been very serious, with the exception of those sustained by Susana Ciorcan. Comparing the conclusions of Susana Ciorcan’s forensic medical certificate with the statements of the individuals involved in the incident, the prosecutor concluded that the officers under investigation did not intend to take the victim’s life, stating that “the agents’ intention had obviously been to discourage the large number of people gathered there, not to kill them”. The prosecutor’s decision also stated that: “This lack [of intent] may also be deduced from the approach taken – the person concerned was not targeted, we are dealing with a random shooting ...The acts of the above-mentioned [individuals] might constitute the offence of causing serious bodily harm ... with respect to Susana Ciorcan.” 38. The person who shot Susana Ciorcan or the type of bullet which cause her injuries were not identified and no explanation was given in this regard. The officers who fired their guns were not clearly identified in the decision either. 39. The Mureş prosecutor also acknowledged that twenty-seven victims had filed a criminal complaint requesting the investigation of the special force officers for the crimes of abusive conduct and causing serious bodily harm. Therefore, he ultimately decided that the investigation for the crimes of abusive conduct and causing serious bodily harm under Articles 180 and 182 of the Criminal Code should be continued by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Reghin District Court (“the Reghin prosecutor’s office”). 40. Susana Ciorcan’s representative lodged an appeal with the hierarchically superior prosecutor against the Mureş prosecutor’s decision of 16 January 2007. The core of his complaint was that the perpetrator had not been identified and that the evidence (expert reports) adduced to the file, which proved that there had been guns there that day which had not only used rubber bullets but also live ammunition, had been completely ignored. The State agents should have been aware that the use of such ammunition could have resulted in the death or fatal injury of the people they had shot at. Furthermore, not only had the perpetrator not been identified, no steps had been taken to establish whether Susana Ciorcan had been shot by a rubber bullet or a regular one. 41. On 29 June 2007 the appeal was dismissed as ill-founded by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal. The investigation was considered to have been properly conducted. 42. Susana Ciorcan’s representative also lodged a complaint with the Mureş County Court, stating that the prosecutor had not considered all the evidence in the file and had mainly relied on the version of events as presented by the State agents. He then reiterated the argument that the use of live ammunition shot at random should have made identifying those who had fired the shots a necessity. A ballistic report was also required in this regard. Attention was brought to two of the agents’ statements, one of them made by Mureş County police officer S.C.L., who said that “neither I nor any of my colleagues in our vehicle attacked the Roma or were attacked by them”. This was confirmed by M.M., who admitted that he had not been hurt at all. In another piece of evidence it was mentioned that none of the blunt objects allegedly used to damage the State agents’ vehicles had been found at the scene of the incident. In such circumstances, the conclusions drawn by the prosecutor appeared unfounded. 43. The complaint also claimed that there had been racist motives behind the ill-treatment Ms Ciorcan and the rest of the victims had been subjected to, with a request that this allegation be clarified. In this respect, relying on the Court’s case-law in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005VII) Ms Ciorcan’s representative complained that the disproportionate reaction of the State agents towards Ms Ciorcan and the rest of the victims constituted discrimination and together with the subsequent ineffective investigation were in breach of Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention. 44. On 3 July 2008 the Mureş County Court, basing its decision on the documents in the prosecutor’s investigation file, dismissed the complaint, holding that the prosecutor’s decision of 16 January 2007 had been correct. The existence of possible racist motives behind the victims’ ill-treatment had not been analysed by the court. 45. The applicants’ representative lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision, reiterating all the complaints submitted before the firstinstance court, and requesting that a further investigation for serious first-degree murder also be conducted, under Article 176 of the Criminal Code. 46. On 26 July 2008 Susana Ciorcan died at the age of fifty-six, two years after the incident. The proceedings were continued by her sons and daughters: Costel Ciorcan, Sorin Ciorcan, Carol Ciorcan, Sonia Biga, Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga), Augustin Biga and Edith Csiki (Biga). 47. The Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by final decision of 19 November 2008, holding that the first-instance court had meticulously analysed the file and correctly concluded that there had been no intention to commit the offences under investigation, the agents having acted in accordance with the standard procedure regulating that kind of intervention. 48. Following the Mureş prosecutor’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction, a criminal investigation was launched by the Reghin prosecutor’s office for abusive conduct, under Article 250 of the Criminal Code. 49. The prosecutor questioned the State agents, who reiterated their previous statements. Eleven of the applicants amongst the twenty-seven victims who had filed the complaint on 3 October 2006 also made statements. Two of them had also made a statement to the Mureş prosecutor. The applicants Ancuţa-Maria Moldovan and Liviu Bucunea Jr alleged that the special forces officers had shouted: “go inside your house or I will kill you” and “go inside your house or I will blow your brains out” respectively. 50. The prosecutor also questioned eight other Roma victims, who had not made statements to the Mureş prosecutor’s office. They expressed their wish for the individuals who assaulted them to be held liable for their actions and declared that they would be claiming compensation in that regard. 51. On 16 July 2007, upholding the same facts as established in the decision issued by the Mureş prosecutor’s office, the Reghin prosecutor issued a decision not to bring charges against the seven officers under investigation, concluding that they had acted in self-defence, which under Article 10(1)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure eliminated the criminal element of the acts committed. In connection with the course of events, the decision started by repeating the Mureş prosecutor’s office findings that: “... superior officers from the Mureş County police ... pointed out that the scene could not be reached because there were a large number of people (several hundred) armed with bats, pitchforks, axes and scythes and the law-enforcement authorities could not secure the area ... Almost immediately upon arriving at the scene, several local residents started to gather and a fight broke out between them and members of the DIAS.” 52. Also referring to the facts, the decision mentioned that the special forces officers declared they had been grouped together during the incident, while quoting in support of this finding the statement made by H.D.M., who stated that they had initially been grouped together but had disbanded on being attacked by fifteen to twenty Roma each. 53. In order to substantiate the decision, the prosecutor first listed the injuries suffered by the State agents as follows: “H.D.M. was hit in the legs and the face, and according to the medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required eight to nine days of medical care; M.F. was hit in the right shoulder, in both cheeks, above the left temple, the right leg above the knee and all fingers, and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required eight to nine days of medical care; G.P.J. was hit with a stick in the legs and then immediately with a stone or a brick in the head, and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required seven to eight days of medical care; V.M. was hit with a stone in the head, and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required five to six days of medical care; C.I. was hit in the ribs, the right ankle, the tibia and calf of the right leg and the left shoulder area, and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required twelve to fourteen days of medical care; S.P. was hit in the legs, the head, the back and the hands, and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required eight to nine days of medical care.” 54. The prosecutor then gave details of the gunshot injuries suffered by thirteen Roma victims, including Susana Ciorcan, who was held to have been shot in the back. 55. Further on, the prosecutor listed the damage sustained by the vehicles used by the police officers to get to the Apalina neighbourhood on the day of the incident, namely cracks in the windscreen or side windows, scratches and bumps. 56. In view of the above elements and citing parts of the statements made by the special forces officers, the prosecutor concluded that the State agents could not be held liable for abusive behaviour as they had acted in self-defence. 57. Neither the officers who fired their guns nor the person who shot Susana Ciorcan were identified, nor was any explanation given in this regard. 58. The applicants’ representative complained against the 16 July 2007 decision on behalf of the same twenty-seven victims who had joined the criminal proceedings on 3 October 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). He alleged that the incident had been caused by the authorities’ lack of adequate preparation for their operation, the purpose of which had been to summon two individuals to appear before the prosecutor for the investigation of an alleged non-violent offence. He further complained that only the alleged perpetrators’ statements had been used as a basis for the prosecutor’s decision, and had disproportionately referred to the evidence favourable to them, without making the slightest attempt to try and identify who had fired their guns or the type of ammunition used. In addition, he complained that the prosecutor’s decision had completely failed to mention certain crucial elements, in particular the severity of the injuries inflicted by the State agents on the victims. Furthermore, the number of days of recommended medical treatment in the medical reports could not be relied on when determining the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims. For example, several applicants who were shot were considered to require the same number of days of medical care as State agents whose injuries had been visibly less serious. 59. On 31 August 2007 the complaint was rejected and the decision not to bring charges was upheld by the chief prosecutor. 60. The applicants’ representative contested the prosecutor’s decision before the Reghin District Court on behalf of the same twenty-seven victims who had joined the criminal proceedings on 3 October 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). He asked the court to order a reopening of the criminal investigation in order to efficiently identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. He drew the court’s attention to the extraordinary and urgent deployment of police forces (two hours after the commission of the alleged offence) in order to serve two summonses which are normally sent by post, a situation which would never happen in cases involving non-Roma people. 61. On 16 July 2008 the Reghin District Court, basing its decision on the documents in the prosecutor’s investigation file, dismissed the complaint, holding that the prosecutor’s decision of 16 July 2007 had been correct. In dismissing the complaint, the court briefly stated that even if guilt had been established, the application of Article 44 of the Criminal Code (selfdefence) made it necessary for the prosecutor to adopt the decision not to bring charges. 62. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Mureş County Court, but it was dismissed on 12 February 2009. 63. Meanwhile, on 3 November 2008 the representative of the applicants Ana Maria-Paula Bidi (Beica), Denes Biga, Erika Biga, Iosif Biga Snr, Iosif Biga Jr, Ladislau Biga, Rozalia Bucunea, Carol Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga), Ladislau Horvath, Petru Kalanyos Snr, Petru Kalanyos Jr, Ana Lingurar and Lela Potra, whose names were not mentioned by the prosecutor in the 16 January 2007 decision, submitted a request to the Mureş prosecutor’s office seeking information concerning the progress of their complaints against the special forces officers. On 10 December 2008 they were informed that the file concerning the death of Susana Ciorcan had been terminated with a decision not to bring charges, and that the investigation for the alleged abusive conduct on the occasion of the incident of 7 September 2006 was currently under way with the Reghin prosecutor’s office. They were informed that the statements they had made to the Mureş prosecutor had also been forwarded to the Reghin prosecutor’s office. Following this reply, the fourteen applicants submitted a request to the Reghin prosecutor’s office detailing their situation and seeking information about the current status of their complaints. On 31 July 2009 they received a reply, informing them that they had failed to quote the correct case number. They were asked to provide this information in order to receive a response. 64. On 21 December 2006 the Disciplinary Council held a meeting to assess whether A.M., the officer who ran the operations on behalf of the Mureş County police, had breached police disciplinary rules when fulfilling the order of 7 September 2006 given by his chief. 65. According to the minutes of the meeting, the Council heard evidence from A.M., as well as a witness in his defence, A.A., the prosecutor in charge of the investigation of the complaint for insulting behaviour filed by R.O. 66. In his statement A.M. first described the circumstances leading up to the incident. He stated that: “After a discussion with officer R.O., during which he told me about the incident that took place on the terrace of the “Ceres” bar in Reghin, I asked him to prepare a written report. Because it was not clear whether a crime had been committed, I decided that a team of officers should go to the bar in order to find witnesses and take statements from them, while I, together with another team, should go to the Apalina neighbourhood to take statements from the two suspects ...” He further described how the special forces agents were attacked by the “Roma”, while A.A. told the Council: “I consider that it was the strange reaction that Roma people have on seeing police cars or policemen that led to the clash that day.” 67. The Disciplinary Council unanimously decided that the policeman under investigation was innocent. 68. The complaint for insulting behaviour filed by R.O. on 7 September 2006 was dismissed at a later date by the prosecutor, since at the time of the incident R.O. had been off-duty and had not been acting in his official capacity, and there had been no physical violence between the parties. 69. The two summonses which justified the police operation of that day were never served on the two suspects, who were never questioned by the prosecutor in connection with the complaint filed by R.O.