5.  The applicant was born in 1966. At the time she submitted her complaint she lived in Madona Region, Latvia. 6.  On 17 November 2006 the Madona District Court, acting as a first‑instance court, found the applicant guilty of a traffic offence which had caused moderate bodily injury to a victim. The court ordered the applicant to perform 100 hours of community service and suspended her driving licence for a year. 7.  In establishing the applicant’s guilt, the first-instance court relied on incriminating statements by the victim and two witnesses. It also relied on other evidence, including a medical expert opinion on the bodily injuries sustained by the victim. 8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Vidzeme Regional Court. She alleged, inter alia, that the first instance court had failed to order an inspection and a technical examination of her vehicle, and had also not carried out a confrontation of witnesses. 9.  On 13 February 2007 the Vidzeme Regional Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court but changed in part the punishment by revoking the suspension of the applicant’s driving licence. 10.  On 8 March 2007 the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to the Senate of the Supreme Court. She alleged that the appellate court had failed to carry out and to order a number of investigating activities. Specifically, according to the applicant, the appellate court has not carried out a confrontation between the witnesses and the victim. It has not ordered an investigative experiment, an inspection and a technical examination of her vehicle. 11.  The applicant maintained that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to establish her guilt, and thus the appeal court had acted contrary to numerous sections of the Criminal Procedure Law. 12.  In a letter dated 11 April 2007 a judge of the Senate of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that on 11 April 2007 her appeal on points of law was not admitted for examination in the cassation proceedings. It relied on section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law and stated that “[the appeal on points of law] was not substantiated by any fundamental infringement of the Criminal Law or the Law on Criminal Procedure”. It was also stated that it was not within the competence of the cassation court to re-examine or obtain evidence, or to explain the factual circumstances of the case.