5.  The applicants are a married couple of Roma origin. They were born in 1986 and live in Hurbanovo. 6.  On 16 June 2012, around 9 a.m., Mr J., a municipal police officer who was off duty that day, took an illegally purchased gun with two full magazines and some extra ammunition and drove in his private car to the town of Hurbanovo, where around a thousand Roma people live. 7.  Around 10 a.m. he stopped in front of the applicants’ family house, entered the property and, without saying a word, started firing bullets at the family members who happened to be in the yard. He stopped shooting when the cartridge of the gun was empty. Three members of the applicants’ family, namely the second applicant’s father, brother, and brother-in-law, were shot dead. The first applicant was seriously injured in the hips and thighs and the second applicant in the liver, lower appendix, stomach, and elbow. 8.  After the shooting, Mr J. returned to the car. On his way, he met two other Roma men, members of the applicants’ family, and threatened to kill them. Then he got into his car and drove away. Eventually, he arrived at the house of the mayor of Hurbanovo, in front of which he was arrested. 9.   Mr J. was charged on 17 June 2012 with premeditated first-degree murder, partly accomplished and partly attempted (zločin úkladnej vraždy, sčasti dokonaný a sčasti v štádiu pokusu), in connection with the offences of prohibited acquisition and possession of a firearm and forcible entry into a dwelling.
(a)  Questioning of Mr J. 10.  During his pre-trial questioning on 16 and 17 June and 12 July 2012 Mr J. provided several statements concerning his recollection of the above events, confessed to the charges on all counts, and expressed remorse. 11.  His first statement of 16 June 2012 reads as follows:
“... I woke up at around 8.30-9.00 a.m. and I don’t know what came into my mind but I told myself that I must do something with those Roma people, it was nothing specific ... I put on my boiler suit and slippers, took a gun – a pistol which I had in my wardrobe ... this morning I loaded the gun, ... got into my car and went to deal with everything, including the Roma ... Afterwards, I wanted to shoot myself; somehow it weighed heavily [on my mind] ... I went down to Hurbanovo, where I arrived at around 9.20 a.m. ... I went across the city of Hurbanovo and I came to the houses at the end of the city, where Roma live. I slowed down nearby one house [and] looked into the yard, but there was only one girl, so I drove further to another house. ... By the next house ... I saw a gate opened and Roma in the yard, I pulled up, got out of the car and entered the yard ... I had the gun already in my hand as I was getting out of the car ... they were sitting and I started to fire shots at them ... I wanted to kill them. ...”
The investigator further asked why Mr J. had entered that particular yard and started shooting. Mr J. answered:
“... I did not care which yard I entered, if there had been more Roma in that first yard where only one girl had been, I would have entered there and opened fire in that first yard.” 12.  During a second interview on 17 June 2012, Mr J. stated, inter alia, that he was not able to explain the reasons for his actions, that he did not remember most of the events, and that he had wanted to commit suicide shortly after the shooting. He had just fired at some people – not at a specific person – and could not remember how many times he had fired. He also declared that he did not know the applicants’ family personally, only by sight, having had dealings with them as a municipal police officer. He had often gone to Hurbanovo to deal with problems of public order and remembered meeting some members of the applicants’ family – in particular, the late brother of the second applicant, since he had once slapped him because of his aggressive behaviour after he had been caught stealing.
In particular, his statement reads as follows:
“The investigator: What brought you to the decision to go and shoot at those people?
Mr J.: This I don’t know ... maybe because I have been working as a policeman for twenty years and there were always problems with Roma, but I have never been aggressive towards them.
...
Investigator: Why did you enter that particular yard and start shooting?
Mr J.: Because there were people; if there had been people in the first yard, I would have maybe gone in there.
The investigator: Did you care about the nationality, age, ethnicity of those people in the yard?
Mr J.: I did not think about that. ...” 13.  At a third interview conducted on 12 July 2012, Mr J. confirmed his previous statements and further stated:
“... these thoughts that I had about dealing with the Roma in Hurbanovo – that is to say to do something with them – had been crossing my mind. When I was loading the gun with bullets I might have been thinking also about a radical solution, as eventually happened ... I had been thinking about my work, how to resolve the public‑order issue in the town. I felt that I had been dealing with this for a long time without any success, that there had been some kind of a failure or ineffectiveness ... I could have been nervous because of all this; I could have been tense and all this resulted in my actions.”
(b)  Statements of witnesses 14.  On 16 June 2012 several witnesses were interviewed, including the applicants’ relatives. In general, they did not know of any particular racially motivated behaviour on the part of Mr J. against Roma. However, one of the witnesses, Mr D.L., stated that Mr J. was harsher on Roma than on other people. Other witnesses – including Mr J’s daughters, the mayor of Hurbanovo and Mr J.’s direct supervisor – stated that he had not shown any anti-Roma sentiment. 15.  The police conducted further interviews on 19 June and 20 June 2012. The witnesses, including colleagues of Mr J., stated that he had not expressed any anti-Roma opinions or comments. 16.  On 3 July 2012 the police interviewed other witnesses; they also again interviewed Mr D.L., who stated that approximately a week or two before the incident Mr J. had had a conflict with his nephew, M. who had been shot dead during the attack. M. had been caught stealing in a scrap yard with two other Roma boys. Mr J. had allegedly tried to kick one of them, slapped M. and told them that they were lucky that it was not him who had caught them.
(c)  Expert opinion 17.  On 16 July 2012 the investigator requested expert examinations of Mr J. by two experts in psychiatry and one expert in clinical psychology. They drafted a joint expert opinion. 18.  The experts were asked questions, inter alia, about Mr J.’s mental state and possible illness or disorder, his ability to recognise the lawfulness of his actions, his ability to control his own behaviour, a possible motive for his actions from a psychological point of view, his ability to fully comprehend the course of events, and his credibility. 19.  The report concluded that Mr J. did not remember clearly what had happened. However, he was able to credibly reconstruct some events and acknowledge that he had fired at someone. During the examination, he had also mentioned some incidents that he and his colleagues had experienced involving people of Roma origin, his worries, his fear of them, and his despair at his inability to deal with them. In particular, he had also stated:
“This family has paid for all of them ...” 20.  The report further concluded that Mr J. had been suffering mounting emotional tension for a long time, which had been released by “the escalation effect” and had possibly been affected by the alcohol he had consumed the night before. He was suffering from a temporary mental disorder, known as “abnormal short-term reaction failure with the clinical result of the escalation effect” (abnormná skratová reakcia s klinickým priebehom vystupňovaného afektu), which had resulted in his becoming of unsound mind at the critical moment. Therefore, while he had been committing the crime in question he had had a significantly reduced ability to recognise the unlawfulness of his actions and to control them. 21.  Furthermore, the clinical psychologist concluded that Mr J. was not suffering from any mental illness such as psychosis, or from any dependency. Rather, he had been developing a paranoid personality connected to an intense fear of the aggressive behaviour of some “Roma fellow citizens” towards him or people close to him. This had triggered a perceived need to protect himself, born of paranoia. The psychologist considered that Mr J. had:
“... the paradoxically altruistic motive of [finding] a radical solution to public order issues in the town, in particular towards that part of it which contained the non‑adaptable and problematic Roma people. [Mr J.’s] ambition to personally deal with the public order issues in the town, in particular as regards the Roma minority, is evidently overdesigned [predimenzovaná] [and] is beyond the actual capabilities of one person ... it can be stated that [Mr J.] had been developing burnout syndrome as another of the possible motivating factors.” 22.  In his conclusion, the psychologist found that an important motive determining his behaviour before and during the crime could have been his continual frustration about his own work and the fact that he had been unable to resolve the public-order issues in the town – in particular, the problems concerning the Roma part of the population. He had been developing burnout syndrome as well. However, the immediate motive for his behaviour at the critical moment was unclear. 23.  On 23 November 2012 the investigator interviewed the psychologist, who further confirmed that Mr J.’s aggression had manifested itself shortly before the attack against the Roma boys who had been caught stealing and that this aggression had been internally intensified by a growing feeling of helplessness and fear of danger from the Roma. Furthermore, the expert noted that Mr J. had believed that he could solve the “Roma question” and that his action was in the interest of society. He also stated that:
“... the anger, rage and hatred of the accused concerned those from the Roma ethnic minority, who had been repeatedly subject to his interventions ...” 24.  The expert concluded that he could not confirm unequivocally a racial motive.
(d)  The indictment 25.  On 11 December 2012 the special prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Specialised Criminal Court (Špecializovaný trestný súd) (hereinafter “the SCC”), charging Mr J. with (i) premeditated first-degree murder under Article 144 § 1 and § 2 (c) of the Criminal Code, with reference to Article 138 (j) of the Criminal Code, partly accomplished and partly attempted (zločin úkladnej vraždy, sčasti dokonaný a sčasti v štádiu pokusu), and (ii) the offence of carrying a concealed weapon under Article 294 § 1 and § 2 of the Criminal Code, in concurrence with the offence of illegal entry into a dwelling under Article 194 § 1 and § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code, with reference to Article 138 (a) of the Criminal Code. 26.  The special prosecutor referred to, inter alia, the testimony of Mr J., of the applicants, and of other witnesses, as well as the expert reports and the statements given by the experts when they had been interviewed, including the psychologist’s statements concerning the earlier violent confrontation between Mr J. and Roma children, and Mr J’s growing feelings of helplessness, his fear of the Roma, and his belief that in acting as he had he had believed that he was solving an issue with the Roma. 27.  As regards the legal classification of the offence of murder, the bill of indictment reads, in the relevant part, as follows:
“it is necessary to classify ... the action of the accused, as far as it concerns the shooting [and killing] of the five members of the Lakatoš family ... as ... the offence of first-degree murder within the meaning of Article 144 §§ 1 and 2 (c) of the Criminal Code ... In the present case, there was no accidental behaviour (murdering) caused by the arising of a situation (for example, an argument or ... outburst at the place in question); rather, the murder was premeditated (that is to say a motive had been considered in advance). ... [T]he term “in advance” is not confined to a particular time and ... the motive could have been formed ... over years, months, hours, or several minutes ... In the case of the accused, he had committed himself to the decision to kill ... when he ... decided to drag out a weapon from its hiding place ... and left the house. ... [M]oreover, the experts also identified a longer and continuing internal feeling of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs ... which resulted exactly in the decision to go and shoot with an intention to kill and which had also manifested itself for several moments externally; for example, by the earlier obtaining of an illegal weapon.”
The special prosecutor furthermore argued that the intention to kill was obvious from the manner in which the accused had acted. The special prosecutor identified one aggravating factor in the offence under Article 144 § 2 (c) of the Criminal Code – namely, that Mr J.’s attack had been directed simultaneously against five persons. The ethnicities of the victims or racial motives were not mentioned and addressed. 28.  Between 25 and 28 March 2013 a public hearing took place, during which Mr J. gave no evidence, stated that he did not deny the charges, and responded affirmatively to the presiding judge’s questions as to whether he understood the facts of the crime, whether his defence rights had been properly granted, whether he comprehended the legal status of the offence, whether he had been informed of the penalties under the law for the criminal offences in question, and whether he had confessed to the crime voluntarily. 29.  The applicants, together with six other members of the family, joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties. Their lawyer claimed compensation for damage on their behalf. 30.  On 26 March 2013 two of the experts testified and referred to the conclusions of their report. To the applicants’ representative’s questions, the expert in psychiatry stated that it was not within their remit to assess the issue of racism. Later, the representative also attempted to question the clinical psychologist regarding Mr J.’s aggression towards Roma. However, since a civil party could raise only issues concerning a claim for damages (see paragraph 53 below), the court did not allow him to ask those questions. In his final remarks, the applicants’ representative expressed doubts about the objectivity and accuracy of the expert opinion, and in relation to the Mr J.’s motive stated that:
“... the assessment of the motivational foreground is, in my opinion, inadequate. The experts ... underestimated or misjudged the racial motive of the offender’s actions.”
The applicants’ representative proposed that a second expert opinion be ordered. This was rejected by the court. The court reasoned that the issue of the accused’s motive for the purposes of the claim for damages was of a legal nature and could thus not be assessed by such experts. 31.  On 27 March 2013 the SCC delivered a simplified version of the judgment. Owing to the fact that Mr J., his lawyer, and the prosecutor had all waived their right to appeal, the judgment contained only a brief description of the criminal act in question and the sentencing part, pursuant to Article 172 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment did not contain any legal reasoning. 32.   The SCC found Mr J. guilty of a serious criminal offence as charged, killing three people and injuring two. The court established that:
“[The accused] ... after he woke up at around 9 a.m. ... with a view to definitively resolving the problem with the unintegrated [neprispôsobiví] citizens of Hurbanovo by causing their deaths, took a weapon [and] loaded it with two full magazines; in addition ... he took twelve pieces of single 7.62 x 25 mm ammunition and ... drove himself to the front of the family house ... in Hurbanovo, where at around 10.10 a.m. he left the vehicle, unlawfully entered the yard ... and without a word ... aimed and shot eight times at persons at the yard ...” 33.  Mr J. was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The sentence was exceptionally reduced owing to Mr J.’s diminished soundness of mind, pursuant to Article 39 § 2 (c) of the Criminal Code. His gun was forfeited and protective psychological treatment in an institution was ordered for him, together with protective supervision amounting to three years. 34.  The applicants’ claim for damages was referred to the civil courts. 35.  As can be seen from the file, on 19 April 2013 two appeals were lodged. The first appeal was lodged by Ms I.L. She argued, inter alia, that the court had failed to consider the possibility of a racial motive. The second appeal was lodged (through their representative) by all members of the family, including the applicants and Ms I.L. In their appeal, they cited procedural errors, including the lack of any reasoning for the impugned judgment. 36.  On 18 September 2013 the applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd). It concluded that the applicants, as civil parties, did not have the right to challenge the judgment in respect of the guilt of and sentence imposed on Mr J. and that their appeal could only have been directed against the ruling on compensation for damage. However, since the applicants had been referred to civil courts to claim such compensation, and having regard to the fact that those proceedings were ongoing at the material time, the Supreme Court considered their appeal premature in this part. 37.  On 26 June 2013 and 4 March 2014 the applicants, together with other injured parties, sought leave from the Minister of Justice to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law. Such leave was refused by the Minister of Justice on 17 September 2013 and 3 April 2014, respectively. 38.  On 24 May 2013 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint (ústavná sťažnosť) against the judgment delivered by the SCC. They alleged a violation of Articles 2, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and the corresponding provisions under the Constitution. In sum, they claimed that the SCC had erroneously concluded that Mr J. had had diminished soundness of mind at the time that the crime had been committed, and that as a consequence the SCC had imposed an inappropriately low sentence, which could not serve to discourage the future occurrence of the behaviour in question. 39.  They furthermore complained of the ineffectiveness of the criminal prosecution owing to the questionable quality of the expert report and the alleged bias of its authors, the court’s refusal to order a second expert opinion, the fact that it had been impossible for their lawyer to ask questions and cross-examine the expert witnesses, the absence of any reasoning in the final judgment, and the lack of any assessment of the racial overtones of the crime. They also alleged a lack of reasoning in the SCC’s judgment and that they had had no opportunity to challenge the conviction in their position as civil parties in the criminal proceedings, apart from the part concerning compensation for damage. 40.  On 27 May 2015 the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It held that the impugned judgment had been delivered in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. It furthermore held that even if it had found the lack of reasoning incorrect it could not have found any violation of the applicants’ constitutional rights on the basis of that conclusion. The court noted that:
“... the sole fact that the impugned judgment ... is not reasoned complicates the assessment of its constitutionality. The Constitutional Court can assess other applicants’ complaints only generally on the basis of other documents from the [respective] case file (in particular, the expert opinion and minutes from the main hearing).” 41.  In so far as the applicants complained of the failure of the criminal justice authorities to address the racial motive of the attack, as well as their inability to challenge the conviction and the sentence, the Constitutional Court considered that these complaints were directed against provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the position of an injured party under Slovak criminal law. However, the court observed that the applicants could not challenge the compatibility of the law with the Constitution and the Constitutional Court had no competence to address their grievances. 42.  In addition, the court scrutinised the adequacy of the sentence and summarised that the accused had been diagnosed with diminished soundness of mind at the time of the commission of the crime. This was the conclusion reached by a lawfully obtained expert report, which had also examined the motive of the accused and provided a comprehensive explanation in that regard. The criminal court had had discretion to impose such a reduced sentence, as long as it was done in accordance with the law. As to the applicants’ complaint about the lack of a decision on their claim for damages in the criminal proceedings and the lack of any reasoning given by the court in respect of their claim for damages, the Constitutional Court referred to the Supreme Court’s reasoning and rejected this part of the complaint. 43.  On 10 October 2012 the family of the applicants’ late relatives lodged a civil claim for damages with the Komárno District Court (okresný súd). After the SCC referred the applicants to the civil courts with their claim for damages, on 30 May 2013 they requested to be allowed to join the pending proceedings. 44.  By a decision of 22 October 2013, the District Court dismissed the applicants’ request. Following an appeal by the applicants, the Nitra Regional Court (krajský súd) quashed that decision on 31 January 2014 and allowed the applicants to join the pending proceedings in respect of damages. 45.  On 22 November 2016, at the hearing before the District Court, the applicants withdrew their claims and the court discontinued the proceedings. 46.  On 18 June 2013 the Ministry of Justice awarded the first applicant the sum of 2,358 euros (EUR) and the second applicant EUR 7,545.60, in accordance with Act no. 215/2006 Coll. on compensation for victims of violent crimes. Furthermore, the second applicant received EUR 4,090 in respect of his father’s death. 47.  On 9 March 2015 the District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed a criminal complaint lodged by the applicants against Mr J., which was based on the suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence by disposing of property in order to defraud creditors (poškodzovanie veriteľa) by transferring the title to his house to his daughter and giving EUR 5,000 to his wife as a gift.