CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAF7C7464 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7A18460C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s394C7864 { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffff00 } .s3D4A7EAC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.7pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.7pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s9955AD3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFCF63115 { width:173.58pt; display:inline-block } .s2055D3B3 { width:16.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7C039683 { width:226.45pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }             THIRD SECTION             CASE OF ANCA MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   13 November 2012   THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 17/09/2014   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mocanu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Egbert Myjer,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ján Šikuta,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra, judges,   Florin Streteanu, judge ad hoc , and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in three applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian nationals, Ms Anca Mocanu (no. 10865/09) and Mr Marin Stoica (no. 32431/08), and by Mr Teodor Mărieş, a Romanian national, and the Association “21 December 1989”, a legal entity registered under Romanian law and based in Bucharest (no. 45886/07) (“the applicants”), on 13 July 2007, 25 June 2008 and 28 January 2009 respectively. 2.     The applicants Mrs Anca Mocanu, Mr Teodor Mărieş and the applicant association were represented by Mr Ionuţ Matei, Mr Antonie Popescu and Ms Ioana Sfîrăială, lawyers practising in Bucharest. The applicant Mr Marin Stoica, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms Diana Nacea, a lawyer practicing in Bucharest, until 8   December 2009. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, then by Mrs Irina Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in respect of Romania, withdraw from sitting in the case. The Government accordingly appointed Mr Florin Streteanu to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29   §   1 of the Rules of Court). 4.     The applicants complained, in particular, about the lack of an effective investigation into the violent repression of which they had been victim during the anti-government demonstrations which took place in June 1990. 5.     On 9 February 2009 the Court decided to join applications nos.   45886/07 and 32431/08 and to communicate them to the Government. 6.     On 15   March 2011 the Court decided to give notice also of application no. 10865/09 to the Government. 7.     Under Article 29 § 1 of the Convention, the Chamber decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicants Mrs Anca Mocanu and Mr Marin Stoica are two Romanian nationals who were born in 1970 and 1948 respectively and live in Bucharest. 9.     The applicant Mr Teodor Mărieş is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bucharest. He is currently the president of the applicant association. 10.     The association “21 December 1989” ( Asociaţia 21 Decembrie 1989 ) is an association set up on 9 February 1990 to bring together persons who had injured and the parents of persons who had died during the violent suppression of the anti-communist demonstrations which took place in Romania in December 1989, when the then Head of State, Nicolae Ceauşescu, was deposed. The association, which defends the interests of the victims of the events of December 1989 in the criminal proceedings being conducted by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice (formerly the Supreme Court of Justice), was one of the groups which supported the anti-government demonstrations which occurred in Bucharest between April and June 1990. The demonstrators were demanding, inter alia , the identification of those responsible for the violence committed in December 1989. A.     The violent incidents which occurred from 13 to 15 June 1990 in Bucharest 11.     On 13 June 1990 major demonstrations took place in the streets of Bucharest and, in particular, on University Square. Intervention by the security forces, ordered by the Government (as is clear from the decision issued on 17   June 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice), resulted in several civilian victims, including the husband of the applicant Anca Mocanu, Mr Velicu ‑ Valentin Mocanu, who was killed by gunshots. 12.     On 14 June 1990 thousands of miners were transported to Bucharest, essentially from the Jui Valley ( Valea Jiului ) mining region, which is situated about 300 km from Bucharest, to assist in the crackdown on the demonstrators. At 6.30 a.m. on 14 June 1990 the President of Romania addressed the miners who had arrived in the square in front of the Government Building, inviting them to go to University Square, occupy it, and defend it against the demonstrators. 13.     The demonstrations ended on 15 June 1990, following the intervention by the armed forces and the miners. 14.     The violence that occurred on this occasion led to multiple victims. The applicants Mr Stoica and Mr Mărieş have the status of injured parties in the criminal investigations which were subsequently conducted. 15.     The headquarters of several political parties and other institutions, including those of the applicant association, were attacked and ransacked. The latter association has the status of a civil party in the criminal proceedings in question. 16.     At the close of the events the then President of Romania again addressed the miners and thanked them for their support. 17.     A letter of 5 June 2008, sent to the applicant association by the deputy head prosecutor in the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, stated that “the events of   13 ‑ 15   June 1990 caused the death of several persons; more than 1,000   individuals were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and submitted to ill-treatment in two barracks in Băneasa and Măgurele... The investigation also concerns the damage caused to the State, to associations, to political parties and to individuals, particularly following the transportation of miners and other large groups of people from various regions in the country...” 18.     The criminal proceedings are currently pending (see the account below). 1.     The circumstances behind the violent incidents 19.     University Square in Bucharest was considered a symbolic location for the fight against the totalitarian regime, given the large number of persons who had died or were injured there as a result of the armed repression which began on 21   December 1989. In the first months of 1990 several citizens’ associations – including the applicant association – mobilised their members to attend a protest rally against “people and mentalities considered to be close to communism” (facts as established by a decision of 16   September 1998, issued in case no. 160/P/1997 by the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice). 20.     The first demonstrations against the provisional government took place on University Square in Bucharest on 12 and 24 January 1990, according to the decision issued on 17   June 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The same decision stated that a counter-demonstration was organised by the National Salvation Front ( Frontul Salvării Naţionale , the “FSN”) on 29 January 1990. On that occasion, miners from the coal-mining regions of Valea Jiului, Maramureş, Deva and other areas appeared in Bucharest for the first time. During this period the headquarters of the National Liberal Party were vandalised. 21.   On 18 March 1990 Legislative Decree no. 92 of 14 March 1990 on the new electoral law was published in the Official Gazette ( Monitorul Oficial ). The legislative decree stated that persons who had committed abuse and human rights violations in the exercise of public functions, including persons who had taken part in the activities of the secret services (the former Securitate ), were not eligible to stand for election. 22.     Following this legislative decree, parliamentary and presidential election campaigns were launched for. 23.     In this context, on 22 April 1990 unauthorised “marathon demonstrations” ( manifestaţii maraton ) began on University Square, at the initiative of the Students’ League and other citizens’ associations, including the applicant association; they lasted fifty-two days, during which the demonstrators occupied University Square. The demonstrators, who, according to the decision of 16 September 1998 were not violent, were essentially demanding that persons who had exercised power during the totalitarian regime be excluded from political life. They also called for politically independent mass media. These facts were also established in the decision of 17 June 2009. 24.     The demonstrators on University Square alleged that “the [December 1989] revolution had been stolen by the FSN”, called for identification of those responsible for the armed repression of December 1989 and demanded the resignation of the country’s leadership, particularly the Minister of the Interior, whom they held responsible for the repression of the anti-communist demonstrations in December 1989. Those facts were established in the report of 18 May 2000 by the military prosecuting authorities at the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the decision of 17   June 2009 by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the demonstrators alleged that the revolution of December 1989 had been hijacked by leaders of the former Romanian Communist Party. 25.     On 22 April 1990 fourteen demonstrators were arrested by the police on the ground that the demonstration had not been authorised. As established by the decision of 16 September 1998, those arrested were subjected to violence by the police. As the public had reacted to that violence by arriving to boost the number of demonstrators on University Square – about 30,000   persons, according to the prosecution submissions of 18 May 2000 – the police released the fourteen demonstrators. Over the following days, the authorities did not use force again, although the Bucharest City Council had still not authorised the gathering. 26.     Negotiations between the demonstrators and the provisional government were unsuccessful. 27.     On 20 May 1990 presidential and parliamentary elections took place in Romania. The FSN and its leader, a presidential candidate, won the elections. 28.     The protests continued on University Square following those elections. However, the majority of citizens’ and students’ organisations had left the square, with the exception of a group of about 260 persons, living in tents, 118   of whom had begun a hunger strike (those facts are taken from the decision of 17   June 2009, referred to above). 29.     On the evening of 11 June 1990 the new President elect of Romania and the Prime Minister convened a government meeting, attended by the Minister of the Interior and his Deputy, the Minister of Defence, the Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service (the SRI), the First Deputy President of the ruling party and representatives of the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (those events, and those set out below, are described in the prosecutor’s decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17   June 2009). 30.     On that occasion “it [was] decided to take measures to clear University Square by 13   June 1990”. In addition, “it [was] envisaged that the competent bodies – the police and army – would be assisted by some 5,000   mobilised civilians”. Implementation of this measure was entrusted to the first deputy president of the party in power. Two members of that party’s steering committee opposed the measure, but without success. According to the decision of 17 June 2009, an action plan drawn up by General C. was approved by the Prime Minister. 31.     On the same evening, the General Prosecutor’s Office ( Procuratura Generală ) broadcast a statement on public television calling on the government to take measures so that traffic could circulate again in University Square. 32.     At a meeting which took place on the same evening, attended by the Minister of the Interior, the head of the intelligence service and the head of police, General D.C. set out the plans for evacuation of University Square by the police and gendarmerie, in collaboration with civilian forces. Under this plan, the action was “to begin at 4 a.m. on 13 June 1990, by cordoning off the Square, arresting the demonstrators and re-establishing public order.” 2.     The sequence of the violent incidents of 13 June 1990 and the circumstances affecting the three individual applicants 33.     Following the meeting of senior members of the executive on 11   June 1990, at about 4.30-5 a.m. on 13 June 1990 members of the police and gendarmerie brutally attacked the demonstrators on University Square. According to the prosecution submissions of 18 May 2000 and the decision of 17 June 2009, there were 1,400 police officers and servicemen present. SRI agents had been deployed (according to the decision of 17 June 2009). The arrested demonstrators were driven off and locked up in the premises of the Bucharest municipal police “and [were] beaten up both when being arrested and subsequently” (as stated in the decision of 16   September 1998). Again according to that decision, 262   demonstrators were thus arrested, including students from the Architecture Institute who were in the premises of their establishment, located on University Square. According to the prosecution submissions, those students had not taken part in the demonstrations. The decision of 17 June 2009 mentioned that 263   persons had been detained, adding that they had been taken to the Măgurele barracks after being held in the police cells. 34.     The applicant Teodor Mărieş, who was arrested on this occasion, was taken to police station no. 4 ( Secţia 4 ), where he was questioned until his release at about 6 p.m. (see paragraphs 80 et seq. below). 35.     The police operation led to strong protests from many people, who demanded that the arrested demonstrators be released. “Hundreds of citizens went onto the streets of the capital and University Square and to the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior and of the city police, and began protesting violently” against the security forces, throwing projectiles and setting fire to cars (extract from the decision of 16   September 1998). 36.     At about 10 a.m., large numbers of workers from the IMGB factories in Bucharest went to University Square to help the police forces “in beating, immobilising and arresting the demonstrators”; “their actions were chaotic and heavy-handed; they hit out blindly, without distinguishing between demonstrators and mere passers-by”. According to the decision of 16   September 1998, it was unknown by what means and on whose orders those workers had been mobilised. According to the prosecution submissions of 18   May 2000, they had been mobilised by N.S.D., the deputy president of the ruling party. “Unidentified” groups of workers entered the premises of Bucharest University and the Architecture Institute, assaulted the students and caused damage. Several students were apprehended by them and handed over to the police for imprisonment. Following protests by the deans of the faculties, the students were released. 37.     In the afternoon of 13 June 1990 the demonstrations intensified around the television building, University Square, the Ministry of the Interior and the premises of the municipal police, all places where, according to the demonstrators, the arrested persons could have been held prisoner. 38.     Following those incidents, the army intervened and ten armoured vehicles were sent into the particularly tense areas. 39.     According to a report by the Ministry of the Interior, referred to by the Government in their observations, at about 6 p.m. the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior were surrounded by 4,000-5,000 demonstrators. Since they had attempted to enter the Ministry by force and the situation had deteriorated, the servicemen opened fire towards the roofs of the halls, on the orders of Generals A.G. and C.M., with a view to dispersing the demonstrators. 40.     Gunshots directed towards the demonstrators from a first-floor balcony of the Ministry of the Interior caused the deaths of three persons. 41.     It was in those circumstances that, at about 6 p.m., when he was at a distance of about 22 metres from the door of entry no. 3 of the Ministry, the first applicant’s husband was killed by a ricocheting bullet which hit him in the head. Those events were described in detail in the prosecution submissions of 18   May 2000, which committed for trial the Minister of the Interior at the relevant time, a general and three officers with the rank of colonel. According to those submissions, the victims, who were returning from their workplaces, had not been armed and had not previously taken part in the “marathon demonstrations” on University Square; mere spectators of the events, they had been killed by shots which had allegedly ricocheted following the shots ordered by the accused five senior officers. 42.     On 13 June 1990 no servicemen were subjected to violence by the demonstrators, as attested by the prosecution submissions of 27 July 2007. According to the same document, 1,466 cartridges were fired by the army, the police and other security forces, and a parachute unit was also involved in the public order operations. 43.     The security forces caused the death by gunfire of a fourth person in the area of the “Romarta copiilor” shop. A fifth victim died after being stabbed in the television building district. A sixth victim died of a heart attack on University Square. 44.     The security forces, assisted by civilians, deprived dozens of persons of their liberty by subjecting them to acts of violence and incarcerating them with no respect for legal formalities in the premises of police stations and in the Băneasa and Măgurele military barracks. Those victims were beaten and searched, and had their belongings – which they have subsequently not been able to recover (decision of 16 September 1998) – confiscated. 45.     Some of those victims were taken to the basement of the public television building (see paragraphs 91 et seq. below). Among them, the applicant Marin Stoica was beaten and detained by the police forces. 46.     The day of 13 June 1990 ended in an atmosphere of extreme tension. 3.     The miners’ arrival in Bucharest 47.     On 16 September 1998 witness M.I., an engineer, who at the relevant time was head of department at the Craiova agency of the national railway company ( Regionala CFR Craiova ), stated in the course of the investigation that, on the evening of 13 June 1990, the director of the Craiova CFR agency had ordered that the scheduled trains be cancelled and that four train convoys, or 37 wagons, be made available to the miners at Petroşani station, in the heart of the Jiu Valley mining area. The four trains were to be sent from Petroşani to Bucharest via Craiova (those facts were set out in the prosecution office’s decision). 48.     M.I. related that, having found the order unlawful, he had attempted to prevent the miners’ transportation to Bucharest by cutting the electricity provision to the railway line on the journey in question. In reaction to his insubordination, the director of the Craiova CFR agency ordered that engineer M.I. be replaced and that the railway line be restored at about 9   p.m. It appears that M.I. was subsequently dismissed and reported to the prosecution service, which held on 22 August 1990 that there was no case to answer. 49.     A fifth train was sent to Bucharest from Motru station. 50.     According to the decision of 17 June 2009, the miners and other workers were mobilised by “the FSN’s territorial branches”. The mustering of the miners was then carried out by their union leaders, who informed them that they would be taken to Bucharest to help the police forces re-establish order on University Square. To that end, the miners had armed themselves with chains, axes, sticks and other blunt objects. 51.     The president of the Federation of Miners’ Unions, who became mayor of Lupeni in 1998, was questioned as a witness. According to the above-cited decision, he stated that the five trains carrying the miners had arrived at Bucharest station at about 1   a.m. on 14   June 1990. He alleged that the miners had been greeted by the deputy Minister of Mines and by a Director General at the same Ministry, who subsequently became the Romanian ambassador to Australia,. The two senior government representatives accompanied the miners to University Square. On the way, several “Bucharest residents” had penetrated their groups “in order to lead the miners to the headquarters of the opposition political parties” (events as described in the prosecution’s decision of 16 September 1998). 4.     The sequence of the violent incidents on 14 June 1990 and the ransacking of the applicant association’s headquarters 52.     On the morning of 14 June 1990 the groups of miners arrived initially at Victory Square ( Piaţa Victoriei ), site of the government headquarters, and then dispersed to other locations in the city. 53.     At about 6.30 a.m. the President of the Republic addressed the miners who had arrived at the government headquarters, inviting them to cooperate with the security forces and to restore order on University Square and in other areas where incidents had occurred. The President’s speech is reproduced in full in the decision of 17 June 2009. 54.     The above-cited decision states that C.N., a former officer in the Securitate and then in the Romanian Intelligence Service, who retired from the secret services on 2 May 1990 and was subsequently employed as engineer at the Aninoasa mine, had accompanied the miners to Bucharest. C.N., questioned by the prosecution service as a witness, stated that on the morning of 14 June 1990, the group of miners whom he was accompanying had joined the other miners’ groups, led by the head of the union and by the head of the protection and security service ( Serviciul de protecţie de pază – SPP ), on Victory Square. The leaders present had drawn up an action plan for the miners. 55.     Immediately afterwards the miners, divided into large groups, had been led “by unidentified persons” to the headquarters of the opposition parties and associations perceived as hostile to the regime. According to the decision of 16 September 1998, this deviation from the stated purpose, namely the re-establishment of order, was such as to undermine democratic institutions directly. 56.     The miners were greeted by security forces from the Ministry of the Interior, with whom they formed “mixed teams” and were dispatched to seek out demonstrators ( au început perierea zonelor fierbinţi ale capitalei ). On this occasion, “actions of extreme cruelty [took place], since not only the demonstrators but also residents of the capital who had no relation to the demonstrations were assaulted” (those events are described in the decision of 17 June 2009). 57.     The groups of miners and the other persons who were accompanying them allegedly ransacked the headquarters of the National Farmers’ Party ( Partidul Naţional Ţărănesc Creştin şi Democrat ) and of the National Liberal Party, and the headquarters of other legal entities, such as the Association of Former Political Prisoners and the Association “21   December 1989” (the applicant association). 58.     According to the decision of 16 September 1998, no one present at the headquarters of those political parties and associations was spared by the miners. All were allegedly attacked and had their possessions removed. Many were apprehended and handed over to the police, who were there “as though by coincidence”. All those arrested were imprisoned without respect for the legal formalities. The victims were apparently deprived of their freedom unlawfully for several days. 59.     Some of those persons were released on 19 and 20   June   1990. 60.     The other persons in police custody were placed in pre-trial detention, on a decision by the prosecutor, for behaviour contra bonos mores and breach of the peace ( ultraj contra bunelor moravuri şi tulburarea liniştii publice ), offences punishable under Article 321 of the Criminal Code, and, in some instances, for unauthorised entry into police premises, in violation of section 2 of Legislative Decree no. 88/1990. 61.     Other groups of miners had gone to University Square. 62.     On arrival, one of their first actions was to break into the premises of the University and the Architecture Institute, located on University Square, where they allegedly destroyed “everything [they found]”. The staff and students whom they met were allegedly also ill-treated and subjected to “acts of violence and humiliation”. The miners are said to have apprehended all of those present in those premises and handed them over to the police and gendarmes. The arrested persons were taken by the security forces to police stations or to the Băneasa and Măgurele military barracks, or to the government headquarters. The miners conducted body searches of the arrested persons. Aggravated thefts were carried out, and by this means the arrested victims were also deprived of their possessions. 63.     According to the decision of 16 September 1998, “in certain cases, the confiscated goods [were] returned to their owners, which indicated close collaboration between the miners and policemen”. 64.     The miners allegedly then moved into the streets surrounding University Square. All of the demonstrators who had not yet fled were caught and beaten, to the extent that they had to be hospitalised for long periods. The persons apprehended by the miners were handed over to the security forces, who imprisoned them “without following the legal formalities and without distinction”. People who had merely been passing through the area where the miners took control were subjected to the same fate. 65.     According to the decision of 17 June 2009, 1,021 individuals were apprehended in those circumstances. 66.     According to the decision of 16 September 1998, “the miners’ law-enforcement activities [ended] on 15 June 1990, when the President of Romania thanked them publicly for what they had done in the capital, and permitted them to return to their workplaces”. 5.     The immediate consequences of the violent incidents of 13 to 15   June 1990 67.     As appears from the above-mentioned two decisions of 16   September   1998 and 17 June 2009, 958 miners did not immediately return to their homes, but remained in Bucharest to “be ready to intervene should the protests recommence”, particularly since the newly elected president – Ion Iliescu – was soon to be sworn in. This “shock force” was placed under the command of I.C., a trade-union leader. 68.     From 16 to 19 June 1990, those 958 miners were accommodated in military barracks in Bucharest. They were provided with food and allegedly received military uniforms. 69.     Once the demonstrations had ended, the miners left Bucharest. On leaving the military barracks, the miners kept their military uniforms, “taking them home as souvenirs”. 70.     According to the decision of 16 September 1998, the investigation was unable to elucidate who had given the order to house and equip the miners, “but such a measure could only have been taken at the Ministry of Defence, to say the least”. 71.     According to a press release issued by the Ministry of Health on 15   June 1990 and reproduced in the decision of 17 June 2009, during the period between 13 and 6 a.m. on 15   June   1990, 467 persons had gone to a hospital in connection with the violent incidents; 112   had been hospitalised and 5 deaths had been recorded. 72.     According to the decision of 17 June 2009, with regard to the 574   demonstrators and other persons – including children, elderly and blind people – who were arrested and placed in detention in the Măgurele military barracks, “excessive violence was used against the demonstrators, both by police officers and the miners... and subsequently by the military conscripts responsible for guarding them”. According to the decision, the violence and assaults were “psychological and physical (including sexual) in nature”. The detainees were housed in inappropriate conditions in a garage, and received belated and inadequate medical care. B.     Other specific circumstances concerning the applicants 1.     Specific circumstances concerning the applicant association 73.     On 13 June 1990 the applicant association publicly condemned the violent interventions of that same date in a press release issued at 5 p.m. and published in the newspaper Libertatea on 14 June 1990. 74.     Towards 11 p.m. on 13 June 1990 the leaders of the association decided, as a security measure, to spend the night in its headquarters. Six of them remained there during the night of 13 to 14 June 1990. A seventh person joined them early in the morning. 75.     At 7 a.m. on 14 June 1990 a group of miners broke into the premises of the applicant association after breaking a window. In the first few minutes after breaking in, those miners were not violent, and were indeed rather reserved. 76.     Shortly afterwards, an unidentified civilian, who was not a miner, arrived on the scene. He began to strike A.N., one of the members of the association. The miners followed his lead and brutally attacked each of the seven members of the association who were present, including S.B. Those seven persons were then arrested. 77.     During the day of 14 June 1990, all of the association’s assets and documents were seized, contrary to all legal formality. The operation took place under the supervision of troops from the Ministry of Defence. 78.     The seven arrested members of the association were subsequently released on an unspecified date. 79.     On 22 June 1990 the leaders of the association were able to return to the association’s premises, accompanied by the police. On that occasion they observed that the premises had been ransacked. 2.     Specific circumstances concerning the applicant Teodor   Mărieş 80 .     As transpires from a letter of 24 September 1990, sent by the Ministry of the Interior to the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the events of 13 to 15 June 1990, several witnesses had reported that the applicant Teodor Mărieş was the leader of a group of demonstrators on University Square during the “marathon demonstrations” which had preceded the events of 13 to 15 June 1990. 81.     At 4.30 a.m. on 13 June 1990 the applicant was apprehended by armed groups while he was in front of the United States Embassy in Bucharest. He was detained for fourteen hours. 82.     The applicant emphasised that on that occasion he had been subjected to acts of physical and psychological violence; he had been ill-treated, beaten and subjected to fear and terror alongside all of the other demonstrators who had been apprehended in the street and arrested. 83.     Thus, State agents allegedly threatened him in order to convince him to get into their vehicle, and grabbed him like two wild beasts ( şi-au înfipt mîinile în mine ca două fiare ). He had used the term “wild beasts” in addressing his alleged attackers. 84.     The applicant also alleged that he had been taken to several police stations, assaulted and threatened, and stated that he had heard two State agents discussing the order to strike him. 85.     From 1 p.m. he was questioned by a prosecutor for several hours. 86.     In addition, the threats had continued after his release on the evening of 13 June 1990; his home was vandalised by unknown persons who had broken in, and those threats had obliged his companion to leave the city and seek shelter elsewhere. 87.     After his release on the evening of 13 June 1990 the applicant returned to the scene of the demonstrations. 88.     On 18 June 1990 he was again stopped and arrested; he was subjected to questioning day and night by secret service agents and prosecutors. He was accused of breach of the peace (Article 321 of the Criminal Code – ultrajul contra bunelor moravuri şi tulburarea liniştii publice ), instigation and public defence of offences (Article 324 of the Criminal Code – instigare publică şi apologia infracţiunilor ), destruction of public property ( distugere în paguba avutului obştesc ) and of entering the premises of an institution without authorisation. After fourteen days he was transferred to Jilava Prison in Bucharest with twenty-eight other persons. On 5   July   1990 he began a hunger strike to protest against the conditions in which he was detained. He was held in pre-trial detention until 30   October   1990. 89.     By a decision of 15 April 1991, the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant only of the charge of entering the premises – namely the courtyard – of the public television station (an offence punishable under Article 2 § 2 of Legislative Decree no. 88/1990) and acquitted him of all the other charges. 90.     By a judgment of 24 February 1992 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 15 April 1991 and acquitted the applicant of all the charges, including that of entering the premises of a public institution without authorisation. 3.     Specific circumstances concerning the applicant Marin Stoica 91 .     On 13 June 1990, while he was walking to his office along a street close to the public television headquarters, the applicant was stopped in an inappropriate manner by a group of armed individuals and taken by force into the television building. Civilians, assisted by the police officers and servicemen present in those premises bound and struck him, then took him to the basement of the building. He was then led into a television studio, where several dozen other persons were already present; they were all filmed in the presence of the then director of the public television channel. The recordings in question were broadcast during the night of 13 to 14   June 1990, accompanied by commentary indicating that they were foreign agents who had threatened to destroy the television premises and equipment. 92.     In the course of the same night the applicant was beaten, struck on the head with blunt objects and threatened with firearms until he lost consciousness. He provided a detailed description of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected in a statement made to the military prosecutor on 17   May 2005 in the context of the investigation in case no.   75/P/1998. 93.     The applicant woke up around 4.30 a.m. in the Floreasca Hospital in Bucharest. According to the forensic medical report drawn up on 18   October 2002, the medical certificate issued by the hospital’s emergency surgery department stated that at about 4.30 a.m. on 14 June 1990, the applicant had presented himself in the reception area. He had then been diagnosed as suffering from bruising on the left side of the abdomen and ribcage, abrasions on the left side of his ribcage resulting from an assault, and cranio-cerebral trauma. 94.     Fearing further ill-treatment, he fled from the hospital, which was surrounded by police officers, at about 6.30 a.m. 95 .     As his identity papers had been taken from him in the course of the events of 13 to 14 June 1990, he was invited to collect them three months later from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations at the General Inspectorate of Police. In the meantime, he had remained shut away at home for fear of being re-arrested, tortured and imprisoned. C.     The criminal investigation 96.     The investigation into the violent suppression of the anti-government demonstrations of June 1990, in the course of which the husband of applicant Anca Mocanu was killed and of which the two other individual applicants were allegedly victims, and which resulted in the ransacking of the applicant association’s headquarters, began in 1990, initially in the context of different case files – more than one thousand, according to the Government. 97.     In the letter of 29 May 2009 sent to the Government Agent by the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the facts are summarised as follows: “With regard to the period 1990-1997, we note that hundreds of cases were registered on the rolls of the prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest County Court and the district prosecutor’s offices as complaints concerning the offences of theft, destruction, armed robbery, breach of personal integrity, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and other offences, acts committed in the context of the miners’ actions in Bucharest on 14 and 15   June 1990. In the majority of those cases, it having proved impossible to identify the perpetrators, the proceedings were discontinued.” 98.     No decision to discontinue the proceedings was communicated to the applicant Anca Mocanu. 99.     Those cases were subsequently joined and the context of the investigation was broadened in 1997 and subsequent years, the events having been given another legal classification implying aggravated criminal responsibility. From 1997 senior army officers and State officials were successively accused and the investigation was transferred to the military prosecutor’s office as case no. 160/P/1997. 100.     According to the Government, 183 previously opened cases were joined to case no. 160/P/1997 between 22 October 1997 and 27   October   1999. 101.     On 16 September 1998 a further 98 case files were joined to the main file. On 26 June 2000 the military prosecuting authorities assumed responsibility for 748   cases concerning the events of 13 to 15 June 2009, including the complaints of wrongful deprivation of liberty on 13 June 1990, as stated in the decision of 17   June 2009. 102.     From 16 September 1998, case no. 160/P/1997 was split into four cases and the investigation was continued at the military prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (see paragraphs 108 et seq. below). 103.     From 8 January 2001 three of those four cases were joined. After that date the investigation into the violent suppression of the demonstrations of 13 and 14 June 1990 was thus divided between two main case files. 104.     The first of those cases concerned accusations of instigation of or participation in aggravated manslaughter, including that of the victim Velicu-Valentin Mocanu. 105.     Those accusations were made against the President of Romania at the relevant time and against five senior army officers, including the then Minister of the Interior. The indictment states that “following orders given by [the former president] and measures taken in the exercise of his functions, or exceeding them, in the evening and night of 13 to 14 June 1990 the security forces and army personnel used the arms issued to them and military ammunition against demonstrators, actions which resulted in the murder of four persons, injuries to three others and endangering of the lives of other persons” (extract from the decision of 19   July   2007, issued in case no. 74/P/1998, under which the accusations against the former President and against the other accused, high-ranking military officers, were severed from the main file). This branch of the investigation is described below in paragraphs 117 et seq. 106.     The other case into the events of June 1990, including the criminal complaints regarding the violence to which the applicants Marin Stoica and Teodor Mărieş were subjected and the ransacking of the applicant association’s premises, concerned the accusations of instigation of or participation in the acts of undermining State power, sabotage and genocide, as set out in Article 357 (a) to (c) of the Criminal Code, and inhuman treatment, as well as propaganda in favour of war (Article 356). 107.     Those accusations were brought against the former President, the former head of the SRI and several high-ranking army officers and several dozen civilians. The decision by the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice in case no.   75/P/1998 indicates that criminal proceedings were brought ( s-a început urmărirea penală ) against I.I., the former President, on 9 September 2005 and against V.M., former head of the SRI, on 12 June 2006, in respect of those charges. This branch of the investigation is described below in paragraphs 148 et seq. 1.     The decision of 16 September 1998 by the military prosecuting authorities at the Supreme Court of Justice 108 .     On 16 September 1998 the military prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice issued its decision in case no. 160/P/1997, following the investigation into the criminal complaints filed by sixty-three persons, victims of violence and unlawful arrests, including three members of the applicant association, and twelve legal persons, the premises of which had been ransacked during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990. The victims indicated on the attached list of complaints included Mr   Velicu-Valentin Mocanu and the applicant association. 109.     The military prosecutor’s office indicated that other complaints ( o altă parte a plângerilor ) were pending before the ordinary prosecutors’ offices, including complaints about the death of two persons. In addition, it stated that, by decisions of 30 April, 4 and 5 May 1998, three miners, Nicolae C., Gavril N. and Petru G., had been charged with attacks against the headquarters of certain institutions and certain political parties, offences punishable under Article 2 of Legislative Decree no.   88/1990. The Court has not been informed of the outcome of those proceedings. 110.     The military prosecutor’s office added that its decision also concerned “the suspicions of the murder of about one hundred individuals during the events of 13 to 15 June 1990, [whose corpses] were allegedly incinerated or buried in common graves in cemeteries in villages near Bucharest (particularly in Străuleşti)”. 111 .     It also indicated that, to date, the investigation had not been able to identify the persons who had effectively implemented the executive’s decision to call for civilian assistance in restoring order in Bucharest. According to the prosecution service, this shortcoming was due to the “fact that none of the persons who had held posts of responsibility at the relevant time [had] been questioned”, particularly the then President of Romania, the Prime Minister and his Deputy, the Minister of the Interior, the head of the police, the head of the SRI and the Minister of Defence. 112.     By the above-mentioned decision, the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Justice ordered that the case be severed and that the investigation be continued into abuse of power against the public interest having serious consequences ( abuz în serviciu contra interesului public, în forma consecinţelor grave ). It also mentioned the need to investigate the fact that a social category had been enrolled alongside the security forces to combat other social categories, an offence punishable under Article   248 § 2 of the Criminal Code and subject to a punishment of five to fifteen years’ imprisonment, and to investigate the assault on democratic institutions represented by the attacks against the headquarters of certain institutions and certain political parties, offences punishable under Article 2 of Legislative Decree no.   88/1990. 113.     In addition, the prosecutor’s office ordered that the case be severed and the investigation continued into the homicide by firearms of four civilians, including the applicant’s husband. 114.     It also ordered that the case be severed and to continue the investigations into the possible existence of other victims, namely persons deceased during the violent incidents of 13-15 June 1990. 115.     Lastly, the prosecutor’s office decided to stay, on the ground that the period of limitation had expired, the proceedings in respect of all the offences of armed robbery, unlawful deprivation of liberty, abusive conduct, abusive investigation, abuse of power against private interests, assaults, infringement of physical integrity, destruction of property, theft, violation of the home, failure to carry out obligations arising from one’s post and rapes, committed between 13 and 15 June 1990 by unidentified persons belonging both to the security forces and to the groups of miners. 116.     This part of the decision of 16 September 1998 was set aside by the decision of the military prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice, issued on 14 October 1999. It ordered that the proceedings be resumed in this respect. 2.     Subsequent developments in the investigation into ac