5.  During the autumn of 2004 the applicant assembled several explosive devices with the purpose of extorting money from commercial banks in order to donate the proceeds to orphans. On 25 December 2004 he planted and exploded one of the devices in front of the bank M.; there were no casualties. He then planted another explosive device equipped with a timer and accompanied by a threatening note. It was disarmed. 6.  Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant; however he was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder. On the basis of this diagnosis the Moscow City Court (Московский городской суд) on 7 February 2007 relieved the applicant of criminal liability and ordered his involuntary treatment. 7.  In 2010 the applicant was discharged. He moved to the Republic of Altay, where he registered for psychiatric supervision with the local psychiatric hospital. In April 2012 his schizotypal personality disorder condition was noted several times as being in stable remission. 8.  On Friday, 14 September 2012 at 11.45 p.m., following a request by the local medical services and information received from the municipal authorities, the applicant was apprehended by the police and taken to Gorno-Altayskaya Psychiatric Hospital (Горно-алтайская психиатрическая больница, hereinafter “GAPB”). The grounds for the request were the refusal of the applicant to undergo planned outpatient treatment, stated ideas concerning revenge against and murder of certain regional officials, and the applicant’s own complaints about the “worsening” of his condition. 9.  On 15 September 2012 a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the hospital examined the applicant and diagnosed him with schizotypal personality disorder in decompensation. The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to himself or others and there was a risk of significant damage to his health owing to the deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. The relevant parts of the panel’s report read as follows:
“[The report begins with a detailed account of the applicant’s personal and medical history with a special accent on the events related to the assembly and use of explosive devices and his subsequent involuntary treatment in psychiatric facilities.]
[Mr Makarov] refused medication stating that ‘he [had] a sufficient supply’. Refused planned inpatient treatments. In recent months the attending psychiatrist has observed changes in his mental state – mood swings from depression to hypomania, statements about ‘social pressure’, and conflicts with local and regional public bodies. During the appointments he mentioned ‘bad ideas about killing Mr B. [the governor of the region]’ ...
Mental state: Conscious. Since his admission refused to discuss his condition, actions, behaviour, reasoning that ‘this whole situation is a political conspiracy of Mr B. and his team’; considers medical personnel and doctors to be ‘accomplices’, ‘you are in with B.’s gang’. Does not engage in discussion, leaves the doctor’s office, slams doors. Refuses to consume food and to give samples for analysis. Suspicious of all statements and actions directed at him.
Conclusion: Considering the clinical history of severe mental disorder, avoidance of in- and outpatient treatment, criminal behaviour in acute mental state in the past, his own complaints about ‘worsening’ of the condition, coupled with refusal of voluntary treatment, the panel [considers involuntary hospitalisation in a psychiatric facility to be necessary] ...” 10.  On Monday, 17 September 2012 the hospital applied for judicial authorisation of the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation under section 29 (a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992, since the applicant was a danger to himself or others and there was a risk of significant damage to his health owing to the deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. On the same day the Gorno-Altayskiy Town Court (Горно-алтайский городской суд, hereinafter “the Town Court”) received the application and extended the applicant’s detention until 20 September 2012. 11.  On 19 September 2012 the Town Court granted the application for the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The hearing was attended by the applicant, his counsel Mr M., the representative of the hospital, and the prosecutor. Upon an application by the prosecutor, the court ordered that the hearing be held in camera in order to protect the applicant’s privacy in respect of his medical condition; the applicant himself and his representative objected to that decision. The relevant parts of the judicial order read as follows:
“[The reasoning of the order begins with a detailed account of the applicant’s personal and medical history with a special accent on the events related to the assembly and use of explosive devices and his subsequent involuntary treatment in psychiatric facilities.]
[According to his medical records] on 7 November 2011 Mr Makarov complained of aggravation of his mental state: tension, restless sleep, gloominess, references to the need for psychiatric treatment, however he refused it owing to lack of trust in the doctors ...
Between December 2011 and March 2012 Mr Makarov did not visit his attending psychiatrists despite repeated reminders ...
On 11 July 2012 during a visit to his attending psychiatrist Mr Makarov complained of ‘bad ideas of killing Mr B.’ and other persons said by him to be involved in making his diagnosis public. Complained of persecution by local media, officials, insisted on obtaining a certificate concerning aggravation of his mental condition. Schizotypal personality disorder in acute state. Refused planned inpatient treatment.
[The order goes on to provide an account of the applicant’s most recent hospitalisation and reproduces the relevant parts of the medical counselling panel report.]
The court considers that the report of the medical counselling panel was prepared by competent professionals in the relevant field of studies, and due consideration was given to the clinical history of Mr Makarov ... The report contains the symptoms [showing the severity of Mr Makarov’s condition], it states the diagnosis. Having regard to the information obtained through psychiatric observation, the history of criminal behaviour, anxiety, tension and ideas in respect of public officials, the experts concluded that in his current mental state Mr Makarov is a danger to himself or others and there was a risk of significant damage to [his] health owing to the deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. There are no reasons to doubt the objectivity and impartiality of the experts.
During the hearing Mr Makarov did not contest his diagnosis ... however he argued that his disorder was not severe and he was in a remission state ... Refused inpatient treatment ... Stated that he needed specialised assistance, but not from GAPB; in his statements and replies demonstrated denial and aversion towards [any assistance from them] ... Stated that he supressed the need for psychiatric care with willpower ...
It has been established during the hearing that Mr Makarov needs psychiatric assistance, since otherwise he may suffer from severe deterioration of his health, because he suffers from a severe mental disorder, avoids treatment, refuses assistance of attending psychiatrist, his mental condition aggravated, he has aggressive thoughts and ideas, refuses food, refuses voluntary inpatient treatment ...” 12.  In a separate ruling the Town Court observed that the application for involuntary hospitalisation had been submitted outside the statutory forty-eight-hour time-limit and urged the hospital administration to avoid similar occurrences in future. 13.  On 19 October 2012 the applicant’s counsel appealed against the order arguing, inter alia, (a) that the Town Court had failed to demonstrate the need for hospitalisation, and (b) that the application for involuntary hospitalisation had been lodged outside of the statutory time-limit and thus the applicant had been detained without a court order for more than forty‑eight hours. On 29 October 2012 his counsel lodged an additional statement of appeal. 14.  On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Altay (Верховный суд Республики Алтай) dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s order as well-reasoned and lawful. Concerning the applicant’s detention beyond the time-limit without a court order, the Supreme Court stated that the delay had been caused by the hospital administration, while the courts had complied with the procedural time-limits.