Hădăreni case indictment
Translation and comments by European Roma Rights Centre
is on trial here? The indictment in the most widely publicised case of
violence against Roma in Romania in the past decade repeatedly raises
this question. Although eleven persons are charged with crimes arising
from the murder of three Romani men and the burning of numerous Romani
houses in September 1993, the document reads in parts like an
indictment of the Roma themselves. Thus, the first passages are laden
with hackneyed stereotypes and crude caricatures that amount, in
effect, to an attempt to blame the victims for their own suffering.
"[T]he Gypsies" are accused of "reject[ing] [...] those moral values
commonly accepted by the community", "displaying aggressive behaviour",
"intentionally denying the norms imposed by society", "persisting in
illegal 'activities'", "provok[ing] quarrels and fights", and engaging
in "degrading" conduct. It is a wonder, the indictment seems to
suggest, that they were not killed before.
from the perspective of a historian of post-Communist Europe, the
Hădăreni indictment is an important artifact, for it tells as much
about the culture as a whole as it does about the crimes at issue. Sad
to say, when it comes to punishing racially-motivated violence against
Roma, Hădăreni is about as good as it gets. Most cases of similar abuse
never result in indictment. Not only in Romania, but all over Central
and Eastern Europe in particular, Romani complaints of verbal and
physical misconduct go unattended, uninvestigated, and unremedied.
Hădăreni very nearly had the same fate.
news of the racial outburst spread far and wide shortly after it
occurred, not only in Romania, but around the world. Nonetheless,
within months of the murders, the chief prosecutor in Mureş County,
where Hădăreni is located, complained publicly that there was enough
evidence to indict more than a dozen persons, but that local political
leaders were making it impossible for him to bring charges. A year
later, in 1995, a career prosecutor in the office which conducted the
Hădăreni investigation complained that he was being hamstrung: "For me,
it's a simple case. I have the evidence" to convict at least eleven
persons for their involvement in the attacks on Roma in Hădăreni but
"political factors have prevented the case from going forward." This
prosecutor cited, in particular, the power of the Party of Romanian
National Unity (PUNR) in Mureş County, and the hostility to Roma
expressed by many PUNR officials. He said that this antagonism toward
an indictment in the case reached to the very top of the Romanian
changed? Why in 1997 were the first defendants finally ordered
detained, and an indictment at long last sent to the court? No new law
had been passed. No new evidence had been found. No final break-through
in the investigation had taken place. Rather, it was the coming to
power of a new government (elected in the autumn of 1996), with the
political will to respond to international pressure, which finally made
possible the bringing of formal charges.
That this new political
will has limits -- only some of the responsible parties have been
indicted, the government has done little to prevent intimidation of
witnesses, and many other investigations into racially-motivated
violence remain moribund -- should come as no surprise. That is the way
it is in Europe in the late 1990s. Even the small "victories" come
tarnished by the very racial hostility they are designed to overcome.
The Public Ministry, Court of Appeal -- TÓrgu-Mureş
Prosecutor Office, Case Nr.1/P/1993, August 12, 1997
Liviu Moica, prosecutor, Court of Appeal, TÓrgu-Mureş
Considering the outcome of the criminal investigation in the above-mentioned case, regarding the following:
* Accused: Bucur Pavel, Bucur Petru, Gall Nicolae, Bucur Vasile Dorel,
Precup Severius Ioan, Bucur Vasile, Bucur Nicolae, Bucur Iuliu
* Suspects: Vescan Olimpiu, Budean Vasile, Furdui Simion
We sustain the following:
belongs to the Cheţani district, located in the south-western part of
Mureş, on the road from TÓrgu-Mureş to Cluj, bordered by the Aries
river. The village has 882 inhabitants: 614 Romanians, 145 Hungarians
and 123 Roma- the percentage of these being 14%. Their way of life,
especially of those who came into the village after December 1989,
generated serious tensions with the majority. Generally speaking, due
to their social condition and the rejection of those moral values
commonly accepted by the community, the Gypsies excluded themselves
from social life, displaying aggressive behaviour, and intentionally
denying the norms imposed by society.
Most of them were
unemployed, surviving by finding occasional work, and by robberies,
thefts and other illegal activities. The previous form of property
(state property) being no longer supported by Romanian law, the Gypsies
have received plots of land but they have not worked them, persisting
in illegal "activities", committed in groups and with violence, the
target of their actions, this time, being private property. These are
the facts that caused even further revolt and rejection by the majority.
of Gypsies (ţigani) have been the source of numerous conflicts with the
young people from the village, as they show aggressive behaviour, using
force in order to acquire money and goods. Their conduct became in time
even degrading, manifesting itself in insults and fights. Such
incidents have occurred in the private bar owned by Gall Nicolae, where
they have provoked quarrels and fights.
Generally speaking, some
of these Gypsies conducted themselves like "masters", defying any
social norms. The attempts of older persons with moral authority to
convince them to change their behaviour failed, and such persons were
threatened or intimidated.
The records of criminal investigation
offices and of the instances in Mureş prove that from 1991 to 1993,
seven criminal cases were registered, most of them having as their
object violence, from simple attacks to murder. In reality, the number
of offences is even larger. Being scared due to threats, the victims
either did not complain, withdrew their complaints, or reconciled with
their aggressors. This is especially true because some of the Roma had
criminal records for violent offences already.
perception of the community that previous conflicts had not been
settled in the way they should have been, the outcomes being either
dissatisfying or unsuitable, the precedents created generated an
increase in the number of vindictive actions, both of individual and
This is the background to the tragic events
of September 20, 1993, in Hădăreni. The violence against Roma was
selective -- those normally integrated into social life were not
involved. With all these Roma's uncivilised behaviour and their acts of
violence, conflicts of degenerated enmity broke out. The most striking
example is the case of the accused Bucur Pavel whose arm had been
broken before, but other cases are also available.
declaration of the witness Moldovan Gheorghe is significant, as he has
been living in the village for a very long time and spent his childhood
with the parents of the Gypsies involved in the conflict, but "Then it
was better. We got along well together. Now is not like that anymore.
We cannot agree with them. There is no law for them." That is why
during the criminal investigation a great number of the witnesses heard
justified the events with the claim that, "We couldn't get along
anymore, the glass was filled up."
On September 20, 1993, at
19:00 o'clock in the centre of the village, at the bus station near the
House of Culture, a conflict took place between Cheţan Gligor senior
and the brothers Lăcătuş Rapa Lupian (L.R.L.) called "Sibi" and Lăcătus
Aurel Pardaillan (L.A.P.) called "Parda". They were together with their
brother-in-law ZoltŠn Mircea (Z.M.), and Lăcătus Petru, known as
"Dagala", their brother, and with Moldovan Lusca, also known as
"Iliuta", and they were looking for a ride to the town of Luduş.
Gligor senior appeared, on the opposite pavement, with a cow. Without
any reason, the brothers L.R.L. and L.A.P. insulted him badly, even
though Cheţan Gligor senior was older than they were. Indignant at
their insults, Cheţan Gligor tied the cow to a pillar, intending to go
to the brothers to upbraid them for their rudeness. However, L.A.P.
slapped him and dragged him to the bus station. Here, also without
motive, the two brothers repeatedly slapped and beat Cheţan Gligor
until he fell to the ground.
Seeing what was happening at the
bus station, many people on their way to the dairy tried to help Cheţan
Gligor senior. At the same time, hearing the shouts, his sons came:
Cheţan Gligor junior, Cheţan Crăciun, and Cheţan Mircea.
witness Cheţan Gligor junior states that at the moment when he arrived
at the bus station, his father was on the ground, being attacked.
L.R.L., seeing him approach, took out a knife from the inner pocket of
his coat and threatened him, implying that if he dared to interfere in
the fight, he would cut him. He then actually tried to cut Chetan
Gligor, but succeeded only in cutting his pullover. When Cheţan Crăciun
came, despite the fact that he was unarmed, the Lăcătuş brothers and
their brother in law, Z.M., turned against him. With his knife, the one
with which he had previously cut Cheţan Gligor jr., L.R.L. stabbed
Cheţan Crăciun in the left side of his chest. Immediately, L.R.L.,
followed by his brother and Z.M., ran away. Crossing the street, they
then entered the yard of witness Moldovan Lucreţia, also known as
"Beta". They were followed by the Cheţan brothers. When Cheţan Crăciun
arrived at Cimitirului street, he fell and was unable to get up.
Realising that he was seriously injured, his brothers tried to
transport him to the town of Luduş with a car, finally finding the
accused Gall Nicolae to take him there.
this time, the Lăcătuş brothers and Z.M. took refuge in Moldovan
Lucreţia's yard. They had broken down the door because there was nobody
at home and barricaded themselves inside, saying that if anybody dared
to come in, they would die, and that, "I have already killed one, I
will kill another two."
Concerning L.R.L., also known as "Sibi",
it should be noted that he was the most violent of all, which is why he
was never left alone by his family. He even said once, in Gall's bar,
that he intended to kill all the Romanians of the village if they ever
did anything against him. His brother L.A.P. also had the same violent
character. He had been sentenced to five years imprisonment under
criminal sentence number 149 from May 5, 1992. Mureş first instance
court allowed, at his request, an interruption of the punishment for
three months, until September 3, 1993, which was why he was in Hădăreni
After the victim Cheţan Crăciun was brought to
Luduş, it was ascertained that he was dead. The medico-legal report of
the post-mortem examination of the twenty-five year old victim, and the
medico-legal certificate, prove that his death was violent and was
caused by internal and external haemorrhaging in the chest following a
puncture wound of the left upper part of the chest which penetrated the
thorax, wounding the lung, pericardium and the intra-pericardial
The thoracic lesion was caused by a sharp and
pointed object, such as a knife, with a minimum width of 2.5 cm and a
length of 6-7 cm. The channel of the wound is oblique and directed
upwards. At the time of his death, the victim had no alcohol in his
As it was evening, many villagers came out onto the
street, mainly to bring milk to the dairy. Indignant at what had
happened, considering the previous conduct of these Gypsies, the
villagers gathered around the garden of Moldovan Lucreţia at the fences
situated near the House of Culture, around the yard and the house.
the arrival of policemen from the local police station, the villagers,
becoming increasingly incited, entered the yard. Those inside continued
to threaten to kill somebody else, if anyone came any closer, and
refused to surrender themselves at the repeated summons of the
policemen. This attitude incited the villagers even more.
midst of this scene, the car of the accused Gall Nicolae then returned
from Luduş. He spread the news that Cheţan Crăciun was dead. Hearing
this, the crowd of 150-300 persons -- according to the approximations
of witnesses -- indignant at what had happened and was continuing to
happen because of the aggressors' refusal to surrender to the
authorities, became more and more frustrated and angry.
of those present suggested that they set fire to the aggressors,
because they deserved this. Meanwhile, they were throwing various
objects such as sticks and stones and other objects into the house from
the yard, in order to convince those inside to come outside and
surrender. Among those who were inciting the mob was the accused Gall.
In these moments, as stated by the witnesses Raţiu Vasilica Diana and
Şuşcă Alexandru, the accused Bucur Vasile Dorel and Precup Severius
Ioan kindled a reed roll which they threw into the house through the
window. The burning mat fell on a bed, which instantly caught fire. The
fire spread rapidly. When the fire inside worsened, the first one to
escape through the window was L.R.L. He was caught by Moga Ioan, the
chief of the police, who tried to get him out of the mob and to take
him into the yard of a neighbour Rosca Ioan. Rosca Ioan refused to
allow the policeman to enter the yard, however, saying that he had
nothing to do with the criminals. The policeman then tried to get him
out of the crowd in the street. Officer Moga stated in his declaration,
that beside him were the accused Bucur Pavel, armed with a club, and
Bucur Petre. The crowd began to hit L.R.L., and everybody was trying to
come closer to kick or hit him. At a certain moment the mob pulled
L.R.L. and kicked him several times, so that he fell near a spring in
the street. Everybody around fell upon him. Approximately twenty
persons kicked him, and hit him with clubs, bludgeons, and stakes. At
the same time as L.R.L., his brother L.A.P. came out of the house and
tried to run towards the street. He was followed and caught by the
accused B.V.D. and he was then surrounded by the crowd and hit, just
like his brother. The objects used are considered as material evidence
in the case.
were wounded with various objects, and kicked for a long time, they had
many injuries all over their bodies. Even though they were transported
by the emergency service to hospital, because of the gravity of the
wounds, they died the same evening. Z.M., who stayed in the house, was
found the next day completely burnt.
The medico-legal report of
the post mortem examination of the victim L.A.P., 21 years old, shows
that his death was violent and was caused by a politraumatism with
multiple wounds, fractures, hematomae on the head and body, the
fracture of both arms, and the fracture of his back. All of these
lesions caused the death of the victim. 89 wounds were found on his
body, which could have been caused by direct blows from hard objects,
kicks, punches, clubs, or stakes. The blows came from all directions.
medico-legal report of the post-mortem examination of the victim
L.R.L., 22 years old, and the medico-legal certificate show that his
death was violent and was caused by traumatic and haemorrhagic shock,
caused by a politraumatism with surface wounds on almost 70% of his
The medico-legal report of the post mortem examination and
the medico-legal certificate regarding victim Z.M. show that his death
was violent and was caused by a general incapacity to breathe as a
result of the fire. He was 100% burnt. No other traumatic lesions were
After this, also
in a group, the villagers decided to set fire to the Gypsies' houses.
This continued almost the whole night between September 20 and
September 21. Thirteen houses and their annexes were burnt entirely,
and five other Romani houses were damaged. All those who were affected
by these actions became civil parties in the case (claiming damages
related to the degree of loss of property sustained).
that after the events almost all the burnt houses were rebuilt with
money coming from the Government through RAGCL Mureş [The Autonomous
Office of Locative and Communal Household Economy].
criminal investigation of the case, because of local influences but
also because of solidarity, all of the villagers, except some Roma, and
even some of the Roma, consistently alleged even after two or three
hearings at different moments, that they did not know anything about
the case and that they had not seen anything. This was true despite the
fact that all of those heard had been at the centre of the events and
had seen and knew exactly what happened there. For example, the witness
Gabudean Kalman, even though admitting that he stood near another
witness, Dambean Liviu Cristian, and described exactly what happened
while L.A.P. was hit, repeatedly alleges that he does not know anything
concrete about the case.
witness Cocan Iacob, although at the scene and remembering what
happened, alleges that he could not recognise any of the perpetrators.
Similar declarations were made by witnesses Moldovan Maria, Laslo
Valentin Dumitrache, Suciu Gheorghe, Gambutan Iustin, Cocan Emil, and
The witness Cocan Virgil states that he will not
tell the truth because he is afraid, as he has been threatened with
death by other villagers: these implied that they would kill him or set
fire to his house. He stated that he would tell the truth only if
summoned by the court. Because of this state of affairs, only after a
great amount of trouble during the criminal investigation was it
possible to gather direct and credible evidence regarding the
culpability of the primary suspects.
Considering all of the
evidence submitted in this case concerning the arson attack on Moldovan
Lucreţia's house and the criminal offence of the murder of the victims
L.R.L., L.A.P., and Z.M., we conclude that there is serious evidence
proving the guilt of the accused: Bucur Pavel, Bucur Petru, Gall
Nicolae, Bucur Vasile Dorel and Precup Severiu Ioan.
Concerning the accused mentioned above, we note the following:
accused Bucur Petre and Bucur Pavel are brothers. Bucur Pavel lives in
Hădăreni and Bucur Petre in Alba Iulia, but during the events he was in
Hădăreni staying at his brother's house.
In his first
declarations, the accused Bucur Pavel alleged that, being
psychologically unfit, he does not remember anything. He also does not
recognise the facts with which he is charged. He admits only the fact
that, as he had been previously attacked by a Gypsy man, he hated all
Gypsies. He maintained this and made similar declarations until June
26, 1997, when he clearly explained the circumstances and the events.
He also alleges that neither he, nor his brother have done anything
wrong, even though they had been together the whole time, his brother
taking care of him.
The accused Bucur Petre does not recognise
the facts with which he is charged either. He proved himself to be the
most insincere and difficult witness during the criminal investigation.
if the accused persons do not admit the facts with which they are
charged, their participation as leading perpetrators is established on
the basis of declarations by the witnesses Dambeanu Liviu Cristian,
Dambeanu Florin, Găbudean Kalman, Raţiu (Rostas) Paulina, Moldovan
Lucreţia, Şuşcă Alexandru, Moga Ioan, Barcea Elena Dorina, Lăcătuş
Monica Simona, Cheţan Ovidiu, Kovacs Stefan, Lăcătuş Florina, Moldovan
Vienuţ, Turdean Cristina, Lăcătuş Maria, and Cocan Emil.
From their statements, we conclude that:
* The witness Dambean Liviu Cristian and Dambean Florin stated several
times at different moments and in the presence of one of their parents
(they are minors) that both of the accused, Bucur Pavel and Bucur
Petre, repeatedly attacked the victims L.A.P. and L.R.L. The witness
Gabudean Kalman confirms the fact that they were there when the two
victims were beaten.
* The same
witnesses make clear the fact that during the night the two accused
were among the group of villagers who set fire to the Gypsies' houses:
* The witness Moldovan Lucreţia, interviewed repeatedly,
states that among those who beat the victims L.R.L. and L.A.P., she
positively recognised Bucur Pavel and his brother;
* The witness Lăcătuş Maria testifies that among those who
participated and "helped" at the fire were the two accused;
* The witness Chetan Oliviu states that both of the accused
men were in Cimitirului street the whole time and that he saw them near
the victim, when he was on the ground. This statement confirms the
allegations of Dambeanu Liviu Cristian and Dambeanu Florin;
* The accused Bucur Vasile Dorel states that when the
victim L.R.L. had fallen, many people gathered and beat him. He states
that Bucur Peter, Furdui Simeon, and others were near the victim;
* The witness Lăcătuş Maria states that both of the accused
took an active part in the arson and destruction during the night. The
accused Bucur Vasile provides similar information, as do almost all of
the civil parties (those who suffered prejudice);
* The witness Barcea Elena Dorina states that she clearly
saw the two victims being beaten with clubs in the street. Taking pity
on the victims, she urged those who were kicking L.A.P. to leave him
alone. Bucur Pavel interfered,however, and told her to shut up,
otherwise she might suffer "the same kind of treatment". During the
same evening, she told her neighbours Lăcătuş Florina and Lăcătuş
Didina what she had seen, meaning that the accused had attacked the
of the witnesses Dambean Liviu Cristian and Lăcătuş Maria were
maintained by both even after being confronted by the accused Bucur
Petre. Witness Dambean Liviu Cristian said that he recognised the
accused Bucur Petre as being the brother of Bucur Pavel and that he had
hit both victims. He also states that at that time Bucur Petre had a
The witness Lăcătuş Maria stated, upon confrontation
with the accused Bucur Petre, that he had been among the group of men
who came to her house in order to set fire to it. She recognised
everyone in the mob by their voices, including her neighbour,
schoolteacher Cocan Silvia.
Concerning the accused Bucur Petre:
during the criminal investigation he seriously threatened the main
witnesses heard in the case, trying to convince them to change their
statements. The witness Dambean Liviu, the father of the two witnesses
Dambeanu Liviu Cristian and Dambeanu Florin describes that after the
events the accused came to his house and threatened them, saying that
if he had to go to jail because of Mr Dambeanu's children, they would
die. The accused admits that in July 1994, after the hearing at the
district attorney's office, he went to Dambean Liviu's house, but he
alleges that he did not threaten them, but merely asked about them.
witness Moldovan Lucreţia states that two or three days after the
event, she met Bucur Petre on the street and he threatened her, saying
that if she did not move to another village, he would kill her.
their defence, Bucur Petre asked to question witnesses Cheţan Petru,
also known as "Dulau" and Cheţan Ioan, called "Goanga", but their
statements do not change the state of facts, because it was already
decided that Bucur Pavel and Bucur Petre were among the first persons
in Moldovan Lucreţia's yard and that they were already there when the
policemen came. They consistently stated that Bucur Petre was with
Bucur Pavel when he tried to hit Şuşcă Alexandru with a truncheon.
the medico-legal report of psychiatric evaluation it emerges that Bucur
Pavel suffered from secondary epilepsy with periodical psychological
dysfunction. It was recommended to take the necessary medical steps
against him, consisting of measures of safety according to Article 114
of the Criminal Code.
medico-legal report of psychological examination of Bucur Petre shows
that he does not suffer from any mental disability that might
jeopardise his capacity to understand the content and consequences of
his actions. He is aware of the facts with which he is charged.
the accused Gall Nicolae played an important role in the event, he did
not admit participation. Well known in the village as the owner of the
bar located near the House of Culture, a bar which was frequented not
only by Gypsies but also by Romanians, he was one of the most important
persons, and perhaps the main one, obstructing the investigation by
putting the witnesses under pressure. During the criminal
investigation, his defence basically focused on the fact that he took
the victim Cheţan Crăciun to the hospital and that when he came back to
Hădăreni, the victims L.A.P. and L.R.L. had already been taken away by
the emergency service. He also constantly asked that the witnesses
Cheţan Gligor Senior, Cheţan Mircea, Cheţan Gligor Jr, Cheţan Nicolae,
Cheţan Dănuţa, all members of the victim's family, be heard in his
defence, as well as the driver Onit Ioan and other persons, such as the
accused Bucur Nicolae, or policemen from Luduş.
brothers Cheţan Mircea and Cheţan Nicolae, it is stated that, being
heard on March 15, 1994, they said that they did not want to, and would
not, testify in the case. Despite this, when heard again on June 7,
1997, Cheţan Mircea alleged that he came from Luduş only after some
houses were already burning in the centre of the village.
is important to say that these witnesses and the other members of the
Cheţan family are interesting in this case because they played an
active part in the events, and because during the criminal
investigation it was established that they had not told the truth.
allegation of the witness Cheţan Mircea is contradicted by the
statement of the witness Oniţ Ioan, who clearly stated that they had
stayed in Luduş for only 40-45 minutes, after which they returned to
Hădăreni. In Hădăreni, according to Oniţ Ioan, they parked the car near
the bar of Nicolae Gall, and they all got out and only he stayed in the
car. While he was in the car near the bar, the house of Moldovan
Lucreţia began to burn. He could not be more specific as to when and
how the house was set on fire, because he had not been at the scene.
The defence of the accused Nicolae Gall therefore appeared untenable.
His direct involvement in the events is irrefutable considering the
* The witnesses Şuşcă
Alexanru and Moga Ioan said that the car of the accused returned from
Luduş before the arson of the house owned by Moldovan Lucreţia;
* The witnesses Moldovan Luşca, Lacatus Monica, Ratiu
Paulina, Rostas Zica, Moldovan Vienuţ, Moldovan Lucreţia, Lăcătuş
Didina, and Lăcătuş Florina state that the accused, Nicolae Gall,
incited the others to set fire to the house, shouting repeatedly "Let's
set fire to the house so that the Gypsies will burn like rats." He
threw inflammable objects into the house and then he beat the victim
L.A.P. Some of these consider that had the accused Gall Nicolae not
incited the crowd, nothing would have happened because nobody in the
crowd would have thought to start the fire;
* The witnesses Cheţan Ovidiu and Cocan Emil also state
that the villagers gathered around the fences, entered into the yard
and started to behave more aggressively only after Gall Nicolae came
back from Luduş and spread the news of Cheţan's death. They also claim
that the accused was seen near the victim while on the ground
* The witnesses
Moldovan Maria, Lăcătuş Didina, Turdean Cristina, Dambean Liviu
Cristian, and Dambean Florin state that the accused took an active part
during the night at the arson of the Gypsies' houses;
* This is confirmed by the civil parties Lăcătuş Ghiolanca,
Lăcătuş Ferdinand, Moldovan Adrian called "Costica", Rostas Valentina,
Rostas Otilia, and Rostas Octavian;
* The accused Bucur Vasile Dorel and Bucur Pavel state that
only after the accused Gall Nicolae and Bucur Nicolae called "Haschia"
came back from Luduş did the mob became more and more agitated, after
which they set the house where the perpetrators were barricaded on fire.
at the demand for defence of the accused Gall Nicolae, he was
confronted with the witnesses: Şuşcă Alexandru, Moga Ioan, Raţiu
Paulina, Cocan Emil, Moldovan Maria, Turdean Cristina, and Mocan
Susana, some of them more than once, and they have stood by their
statements even in such conditions.
In this way, considering all
evidence, we conclude that the defence of Gall Nicolae is not
sustainable and cannot refute his guilt for the facts presented.
medico-legal report of his psychiatric examination proves that the
accused Gall Nicolae does not show any sign of psychological distress
that might jeopardise his ability to comprehend the content and
consequences of his actions.
The accused Bucur Vasile Dorel and
Precup Severius Ioan have been more honest in the final part of the
criminal investigation, acknowledging some of the facts with which they
have been charged and recounting in a concrete and objective manner
what they know about the case. The accused Bucur Vasile Dorel admits
the fact that he followed L.A.P. when he ran away from Moldovan
Lucreţia's house, and dragged him until he fell down, so that the
others had the opportunity to catch him and beat him with various
The accused Precup Severius Ioan called "Titi",
recognised the fact that he took from Cimitiruliu street a club just
like those considered material evidence in the case, then he went to
L.A.P. (who was already on the ground) and hit him only once on his
feet. The two accused do not acknowledge the fact that together they
set alight and threw the roll which caused the fire. It is important to
stress that statements of the accused recognising the facts of the case
fit the statements of Raţiu Vasitica, Raţiu Florin, Şuşcă Alexandru,
Dambeanu Liviu Cristian, Dambeanu Florin, Lăcătuş Monica, Moldovan
Lusca, Lăcătuş Florina, Lăcătuş Didina, and Turdean Cristina. These
witnesses show that both of the accused set fire to the house of
Moldovan Lucreţia, after which they beat L.A.P. and took part in the
arson of the other houses during the night.
the accused Precup Severius Ioan, the statement of the witness Raţiu
Vasilica Diana given just after the events in which she stated that he
had beaten both victims Sibi and Parda with a wooden club of at least
50 centimetres is significant. Feeling sorry for them, she interfered
and dragged the accused away from the victim because the latter seemed
to be in great pain. During the same evening, the witness saw the
accused Bucur Vasile Dorel and Budean Vasile showing the way to a group
of young people who were shouting that they would set fire to all
Gypsies' houses. On this issue, the statements of the accused Bucur
Pavel in which he stated that Furdui Simion threw burning tyres into
Bodor's house in the presence of the accused Bucur Petre, Bucur Vasile
Dorel, Bucur Vasile called "Tulai", and Bucur Nicolae called "Haschia"
are relevant. The accused Bucur Petre states also that Bucur Vasile
Dorel caught L.A.P. when he tried to run away and that because of this
the crowd was able to beat him.
The accused Budean Vasile and
Vescan Olimpiu also state that both Bucur Vasile Dorel and Precup
Severius Ioan took part in the arson of the Gypsies' houses. The
accused Bucur Iuliu says that, speaking with the villagers afterwards,
he found out that the person who threw the burning objects into
Moldovan Lucreţia's house was the accused Precup Severius Ioan.
witnesses Raţiu Vasilica and Şuşcă Alexandru, Raţiu Florin maintained
their statements even after confrontation with the accused Bucur Vasile
Dorel and Precup Severius Ioan. It should be mentioned that in defence
of the accused Bucur Vasile Dorel, the witnesses Nemes Ecaterina,
Socaciu Ilie, Che Mircea, and Bucur Nicolae were heard in his defence.
Their declarations are not relevant with respect to the existing
evidence, however. The medico-legal report of psychiatric evaluation
demonstrates that the accused Bucur Vasile Dorel does not have any kind
of psychological problems which might jeopardise his capacity to
critically appreciate the content and the consequences of his actions.
He understands the facts with which he has been charged. The
medico-legal report of psychiatric evaluation of the accused Precup
Severius Ioan is similar.
Criminal action was initiated against
Bucur Pavel, Bucur Petre, Gall Nicolae, Bucur Vasile Dorel, Bucur
Vasile, Bucur Iuliu, and Bucur Nicolae in connection with the case on
July 21, 1994, and at the same time, the measures of preventive
imprisonment for the criminal offence of qualified and extremely grave
murder and of qualified damaging of property were taken. By ordinance,
on the same day, July 21, 1994, all of the accused were released from
Criminal investigation against those accused continued,
as well as against other persons connected with the events, such as
Budean Vasile, Furdui Simion, Vescan Olimpiu, Achim Ioan, Achim Vucu
Sorin, Şuteu Gheorghe, Bartuş Samuilă, Varro Ladislau, Suciu Gheorghe,
Scridon Ilie, another six persons, and others, but from the incipient
acts and from the study of the evidence, it was considered that there
is conclusive proof only against the above-mentioned accused and the
accused Budean Vasile, Vescan Olimpiu, and Furdui Simion. Among all of
these it was decided that there was enough proof of qualified and
extremely grave murder for only five of the accused to be charged, and
that in the case of the others, it was considered only the offence of
qualified destruction and disturbing the public order. Against the
other suspects, there was not enough evidence, so criminal
investigation against them ceased.
Regarding the accused
Bucur Vasile, Bucur Nicolae, and Bucur Iuliu, and the suspects Vescan
Olimpiu, Budea Vasile, and Furdui Simion, it is shown that: the accused
Bucur Vasile, called "Tulai", and the suspects Budean Vasile and Vescan
Olimpiu admit that they were with the group which, during the night of
September 20, 1993, set fire to and destroyed the Gypsies' houses.
Despite their statements, the fact that they have done these things
clearly emerges from the declarations of the witnesses Dambean Liviu
Cristian, Dambean Florin, Lăcătuş Florina, Raţiu Vasilica, Moldovan
Gabriela, Rostas Lucreţia, Turdean Cristina, and Raţiu Florin.
statements of these witnesses will be taken into consideration,
together with the statements of the civil parties and those of the
other accused and suspects. For example, even though the accused Bucur
Pavel states that he saw Bucur Vasile, Furdui Simeon, Bucur Vasile
Dorel, and Bucur Petre at the fire at Bodor's house, Furdui was the one
who threw the burning tyres inside. This is sustained by Bucur Vasile.
It is also shown that the accused Bucur Vasile incited those involved:
Bucur Petre, Bucur Pavel, Bucur Vasile Dorel, and Bucur Vasile, called
1. The actions of the accused Bucur Pavel, Bucur Petre, Gall Nicolae,
Bucur Vasile Dorel, and Precup Severius Ioan of taking part in the
circumstances at the fire of Moldovan Lucreţia's house in the evening
of September 20, after the murders of Cheţan Crăciun, the death of
Zoltan Mircea burnt in his house and the fact of the beating with hard
objects of L.R.L. and L.A.P, causing serious lesions covering almost
all their bodies, as a result of which the victims suffered intensely
and then died in great pain, constitute the offence of qualified and
extremely serious murder according to Articles 174, 175(e), 176(a,b) of
the Criminal Code.
2. The actions of
some of the accused, and of the suspects, of participating actively
during the night in the arson and the destruction of some of the Gypsy
houses in Hădăreni constitute the offence of qualified destruction
according to Articles 217(1)(4) and 41(2).
3. Because of the violent actions and the acts of qualified
destruction by all of the accused, the silence and the peace of the
village was disturbed during the night of September 20, and a state of
panic and fear was generated, especially among Roma. These facts
constitute disturbing the public order under Article 321(2) of the
4. The attempt of the
accused Bucur Petre to affect the criminal investigation by using
threats and force against certain witnesses in order to convince them
to retract their testimony constitutes an offence described under
Article 261 of the Criminal Code as well as Article 33(a).
the legal qualifications, we mention that the victim Zoltan Mircea died
in the house of Moldovan Lucreţia following arson, because of burns
which covered 100% of his body and that the wounds caused by the
violence against L.R.L., multiple and very serious, covered 70% of his
body. We also mention that the victim L.A.P. had more than 89 lesions
of violence, which is a rarity in such cases. Despite all of this, we
stress the fact that the offences were committed under serious
psychological distress caused by the death of Cheţan Crăciun, this
being the justification of the accused for the unusual acts of violence
Consequently, the spontaneous reaction of the
accused is the outcome of the importance of such facts to their
previous state of mind regarding the victims and other Gypsies from the
village, which is the reason we suggest the use of Article 73(b) and
Article 13 of the Criminal Code.
Regarding the accused Bucur
Petre, Bucur Pavel and Gall Nicolae, the measure of pre-trial detention
was taken on January 21, 1997, a measure reconfirmed until August 14,
1997, so the accused will be sent to trial in custody because of the
degree of danger to society stemming from their actions.
accused Bucur Vasile Dorel and Precup Severius Ioan were placed in
pre-trial detention on May 6, 1997, this measure being reconfirmed
until August 30, 1997.
As a result of the events, the houses of
the following civil parties were destroyed: Moldovan Lucreţia, Rostaş
Octavian, Rostaş Otilia, Lăcătuş Ghiolanca, Moldovan Bazil, Lăcătuş
Ferdinand, Moldovan Lucaci, Moldovan Silvia, Moldovan Adrian, Moldovan
Melenuţa, Lăcătuş Petru, Lunca Minerva, Rostaş Valentina and Lăcătuş
Maria, Rostaş Rozalia, Lăcătuş Petru, Moldovan Maria, and Lăcătuş
Petru. It is also mentioned that for the victims Z.M., L.A.P., L.R.L.,
Zoltan Floarea Maria, the wife and sister became a civil party. For
Moldovan Lucreţia her son, Moldovan Iulius became civil party.
all of the above, and in accordance with Article 262(1)(a,b), Article
10(c), Article 11(b), Article 242-249, and Article 228(4) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, I propose:
1. To bring to
trial in a state of pre-trial detention the accused: Bucur Pavel, Bucur
Petre, Gall Nicolae, Bucur Vasile Dorel, Precup Severius Ioan, all of
them being charged with: qualified and extreme grave murder, Article
174, 175(e), 176(a,b); destruction, Article 217(1,4) and 41(2);
disturbing the public order, Article 321(2), 33, and 73(b) and Article
13. Besides this, the accused Bucur Petre is also charged with the
offence under Article 261 of the Criminal Code.
2. To bring to trial the accused: Bucur Vasile, Bucur
Nicolae, Bucur Iuliu, all of them for the following offences:
destruction; disturbing the public order.
3. To initiate criminal action and to bring to trial the
accused: Budean Vasile, Vescan Olimpiu, and Furdui Simion.
4. Cease the criminal investigation against the accused:
Bucur Vasile, Bucur Nicolae, and Bucur Iuliu because from the evidence
gathered, it was not possible to prove conclusively that they were the
perpetrators of the murder.
5. To cease
the criminal investigation, according to Article l0(g), 11(1)(c) and
242 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the murder of the victim Cheţan
Crăciun, because the perpetrator L.R.L., called "Sibi", is dead.
6. Not to begin criminal investigation against the persons
against whom the initial investigation was conducted because their
guilt was not proved: Achim Ioan, Achim Vucu, Şuteu Gheorghe, Bartuş
Samoilă, Varro Ladislau, Suciu Gheorghe, Scridon Ilie, Keseru Arpad,
Suciu Gheorghe Mircea, Nemeth Ioan, Bucur Victor, Bucur Dorin, and
to Article 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the case is to be sent
to trial at the Mureş Tribunal, the instance to which the following are
to be summoned:
* Accused: see annex for the 11 names and their addresses [the annex is not provided by the ERRC]
* Damaged parties: see annex for 19 names and their addresses
* Witnesses: see annex for 37 names and addresses of those who have been subpoenaed.
objects of the offences, clubs and bludgeons with whom the victim
L.A.P. and L.R.L. have been beaten, have been taken during the criminal
investigation and they are to be sent to this instance along with the
Juridical expenses totalling 2,183,240 Romanian lei for
photographs, post mortem examination, biocriminal expertise and
transportation are to be paid by the accused.
For the list with the names and the addresses of the accused, civil parties, and the witnesses, see the annex.