4.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in the case of Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011).
5.  All applicants were ill-treated and injured on the night of 21⁄22 December 1989 during the events which led to the fall of the communist regime in Bucharest. The applicant in application no. 30392/15 (Vasu v. Romania) suffered injuries that needed twenty-two days of medical care and the other two applicants were beaten by militia forces on the same occasion.
6.  In 1990 the military prosecutor’s office opened, of its own motion, investigations into the illegal detention, ill-treatment and injury suffered by the applicants and other participants in the events of December 1989 in respect of several offences as mentioned below. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (currently no. 11/P/2014).
7.  At the same time, another investigation concerning the offences of illegal deprivation of liberty, illegal arrest and abusive investigation against a large number of persons, including the applicants, culminated in the committal for trial of senior military and public officials and their subsequent conviction by a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 10 May 1991, which became final on 14 November 1991. It cannot be seen from the court’s decision whether the injured persons, including the applicants, participated in those proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu v. Romania [Committee], nos. 64752/13 and 54607/14, § 7, 3 July 2018).
8.  As regards the offence of improper conduct, the military prosecutor’s office decided on 27 October 1993 (Ms Nicoleta-Lorena Giurcanu ‑ applicant in application no. 30365/15, hereinafter “the first applicant”), 9 March 1994 (Mr Traian Vasu – applicant in application no. 30392/15, hereinafter “the second applicant”) and 27 August 1993 (Ms Luminița Zeleniuc – applicant in application no. 30410/15, hereinafter “the third applicant”) not to open a separate investigation of its own motion on the grounds that the offence of improper conduct fell under a subsequently enacted amnesty law; that decision was communicated only to the third applicant on 25 September 2008. No decision was adopted in respect of the applicants’ injury.
9.  Further, without a formal decision to overturn the decisions issued by the military prosecutor’s office (see paragraph 8 above) and to reopen the applicants’ respective cases, in the main criminal investigation, the prosecutor heard evidence from the applicants, who reiterated their complaints regarding the offences of illegal deprivation of liberty and assault and battery, based on their ill-treatment and injuries during the events of December 1989. Thus, the first applicant asked on 29 April 2005 to be joined to these proceedings as a civil party and for the investigation of the case to be pursued by the military prosecutor’s office. The second applicant gave statements as an injured party on 7 January 2000 and 23 November 2004. The third applicant raised civil claims on 25 September 2008 and requested that the persons responsible be identified and committed to stand trial.
10.  The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (cited above, §§ 12-41), and Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018).
11.  On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office issued a decision in respect of the offence of instigating illegal deprivation of liberty, concerning all the applicants, by closing the main criminal investigation on the grounds of res judicata in relation to the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision of 10 May 1991 (see paragraph 7 above). In addition, the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation in respect of the offence of instigating improper conduct regarding the second applicant, as it fell under an amnesty law (see paragraph 8 above). No decision was adopted with respect to the injury and assault and battery complained of by the applicants.
12.  The decision of 14 October 2015 (see paragraph 11 above) was subsequently annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the opening of a criminal investigation in rem for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same factual circumstances.
13.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the main criminal investigation is still ongoing (see Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu, cited above, § 12).