Abstract: This paper examines how Holocaust and Gulag are reflected in Romanian jurisdiction after 1989. In contrast to the historian, the judge is not confronted with historical phenomena as such, but with concrete criminal cases. The judge has to decide in a definitive way about individual responsibility, whether a person should be punished for a specific action, or not. Starting from a criminal law perspective, the paper refers to several cases concerning state-controlled injustice of the early communist period. Although the notion Gulag is not used in Romanian law cases, in some cases the Romanian Courts had to decide about crimes from this period. Some of those sentences do also refer to the Holocaust. Summing up, judges seem to be afraid of big historical phenomena. In most of the analysed cases, the argumentation is very formal, rather ignoring the historical context. This attitude can be explained with the limits of the legal approach mentioned above and is also typical for transitional justice. Of course, jurisdiction could put more impact on the historical background. Of course criminal law?s reaction to state crime could be more important. But still, judges alone are not able to cope with the crimes of the past, this has to be done by society as a whole.