13. The complaint was dealt with by Colonel P., an inspector with the personnel service of the DDIA. On 15 October 1992, Colonel P. heard each of the applicants and prepared written accounts of their oral testimony. Mr Assenov was heard in the presence of a teacher, Mr. G. In their statements, the applicants gave the account of events set out in paragraphs 8-9 above. 14. Colonel P. also ordered the three police officers present at the bus station and the officer who had been on duty at the police station to submit written explanations. This they did on 21, 22 and 26 October 1992. According to these statements, Sergeant B., who was off-duty and out of uniform, had been passing the central bus station when he saw people gambling. He had arrested Mr Assenov and taken him to the bus station from where he had called the police officer on duty. Thereupon Mr Ivanov had appeared, shouted at the boy, and had hit him two or three times on the back with a ply-wood strip. He and his wife, who had arrived shortly thereafter, started protesting against their son’s arrest and pulling the boy. When Sergeants S. and V. arrived, the father had shouted, swore, and threatened the police officers, who told him to be quiet and asked him to come voluntarily to the police station. A crowd of about fifteen to twenty Roma had gathered; also present were approximately twenty drivers from the bus station. Since Mr Ivanov had continued his violent behaviour, the police officers had subdued him forcibly, handcuffed him and taken him and his son to the police station. There officer S. had filled out a form recording the seizure of 100 leva from Mr Assenov and then released the two applicants. It was not true that they had been beaten at the police station. 15. On 26 October 1992 Colonel P. also obtained a written statement from the traffic manager at the bus station. She stated that a policeman had brought a boy and had asked her to telephone the police for a car. She did not remember any disturbance having occurred. 16. Based on this evidence, on 6 November 1992 Colonel P. drew up an internal note in which he made a summary of the facts and concluded that the boy had been beaten by his father. 17. On 13 November 1992 the Director of the DDIA wrote to the applicants stating that the conduct of the police officers had been lawful and that he would not, therefore, open criminal proceedings against them. 4. Investigation by Regional Military Prosecution Office 18. On 12 December 1992 the applicants submitted a request for the criminal prosecution of the alleged offenders to the Regional Military Prosecution Office in Varna (“the RMPO”). 19. On 30 December 1992 the RMPO ordered an inquiry to be carried out by investigator G. at the Military Investigation Office in Shoumen. 20. On 8 February 1993 investigator G. wrote to the Director of Police in Shoumen, instructing him to take evidence from the applicants and the police officers and to report back. Since there