5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Riga. 6.  On 18 February 2008, in the course of a first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant for fraud in relation to means of payment, the Riga Regional Court decided to relieve him of criminal liability, and imposed on him a compulsory measure: outpatient medical treatment. 7.  On 7 May 2009 the applicant signed an information sheet – drawn up and certified by the Riga psychiatric hospital (VSIA “Rīgas psihiatrijas un narkoloģijas centrs”, hereafter “the psychiatric hospital”) – regarding the rights and obligations of people receiving compulsory outpatient medical treatment. Among other things, this information sheet stated that a patient had to visit a doctor once a month and attend a panel meeting of doctors every six months, on the date indicated by the relevant doctor. It also stated that if a patient missed more than three doctor’s appointments in a row, that patient would be reported to the police so that he could be taken to the doctor. 8.  The necessity of continuing the applicant’s compulsory treatment was reviewed on several occasions, and on 8 April 2013 the Vidzeme District Court, having examined the medical panel’s conclusion of 25 February 2013 in relation to his state of health, decided to continue the treatment. The applicant was summoned, but did not attend the hearing, and on 10 April 2013 the decision was sent to him. 9.  On 21 April and 24 June 2013 the applicant sent letters to the Vidzeme District Court, asking it to revoke the compulsory measure. On 2 July 2013 the court informed him that, following his requests, it had asked the medical experts concerned to report on his medical condition. 10.  On 20 August 2008, in the course of a second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant for social benefit fraud, the Riga Regional Court decided to relieve him of criminal liability, and imposed on him a compulsory measure: inpatient psychiatric treatment in a psychiatric hospital, which on 13 April 2010 was changed to compulsory outpatient medical treatment. 11.  On 28 May 2012 the Riga Regional Court decided to continue the applicant’s outpatient medical treatment. It relied on a medical report filed on 28 March 2012, which, among other things, noted that he was regularly attending appointments with a doctor, was not showing stable improvement, did not accept that he had health issues and had no remorse regarding the offence he had committed. The applicant was represented by a State‑appointed defence lawyer, and on 10 April 2013 the decision was sent to the applicant. 12.  On 10 May 2013 the Riga Regional Court, relying on section 607(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law (see paragraph 22 below), asked the psychiatric hospital to send a report on the applicant’s state of health, so that the court could decide whether it was necessary to continue the compulsory medical treatment. 13.  According to the information the Riga psychiatric hospital submitted to the Government, since 2005 the applicant had been admitted to the psychiatric hospital for inpatient treatment on eight occasions, including on an emergency basis. Since 2010 he had visited doctors every two to three months. In 2013 he had voluntarily visited his doctor on 24 January and 15 April, and had missed an appointment on 24 April. On 28 May 2013 the applicant’s doctor at the psychiatric hospital had telephoned him to ask the applicant to comply with the compulsory treatment measure, and had warned him that police assistance would be sought. Observing that the applicant had not attended a doctor’s appointment, and considering that a longer period without treatment could cause his health to deteriorate, on 10 June 2013 the Head of Unit at the psychiatric hospital asked the police to bring the applicant to the outpatient section of the hospital, relying on section 11 of the Law on Police. That request referred to the court’s decision of 18 February 2008 in the first set of criminal proceedings. 14.  On 17 June 2013 several police officers arrived at the applicant’s home and took him to the outpatient section of the Riga psychiatric hospital. 15.  According to information submitted by the Riga psychiatric hospital, on 17 June 2013, in the outpatient section of the Riga psychiatric hospital the applicant declared that he would only visit a doctor if given a written summons. In line with a doctor’s decision, the applicant was put under observation as an inpatient (novērošana stacionārā). The applicant, accompanied by police officers, was taken to the inpatient section of the hospital, where he displayed dissatisfaction and anger and refused to admit himself to hospital voluntarily. On the same day he was involuntarily admitted for inpatient treatment, as provided for by section 68(1) of the Medical Treatment Law (see paragraph 25 below), where he received medication and on 18 June 2013 asked a doctor to be released. He was informed that he would be examined by a medical commission, as provided for by section 68(3) of the Medical Treatment Law (see paragraph 26 below). 16.  On 19 June 2013 the medical commission drew up a report, which stated that the applicant did not display any psychotic symptoms, therefore there was no need for inpatient treatment. In the afternoon he was discharged from hospital. 17.  On 19 June 2013 the medical commission informed the relevant court that the applicant was not completely well, but his condition was stable and he was not socially dangerous, therefore it was recommended that the court revoke the compulsory outpatient treatment measure which had been imposed on him. 18.  Having examined the above report, on 20 August 2013 the Riga Regional Court and, at a later date the Vidzeme District Court, revoked the compulsory outpatient treatment measures which had been imposed on the applicant in both sets of criminal proceedings. 19.  On 19 July 2013 the Internal Security Office of the State Police (Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs) dismissed a complaint by the applicant that police officers had taken him to the psychiatric hospital unlawfully. In its decision, it stated that the police officers in question had acted in accordance with section 11 of the Law on Police following the request received from the psychiatric hospital. 20.  The applicant appealed that decision to the Office of the Prosecutor General, which on 16 August 2013 upheld it, stating that on 28 May 2012 the Riga Regional Court had decided to continue the applicant’s compulsory medical treatment. As the applicant had failed to comply with the measure, representatives of the psychiatric hospital had had grounds to ask for police assistance in executing it.