4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Rīga.
5.  On 10 August 1998 the Office of the Prosecutor General separated materials of the criminal case no. 81204496 and initiated new criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s activities during the period from 1948 to 1953, when he was an investigator at the Ministry of State Security of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Latvia. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the applicant had participated in political repressions of the Soviet regime.
6.  On 23 October 1999 the prosecutor informed the applicant that he was suspected of having committed genocide. More specifically, the Office of the Prosecutor General alleged that the applicant had participated in military operations against members of the Latvian armed resistance, collected evidence in criminal proceedings against them, arrested them and their supporters and collected evidence and arrested people who had possessed anti-Soviet manuscripts. On the same date the prosecutor for the first time questioned the applicant as a suspect.
7.  From 29 October 1999 to 28 December 1999 the applicant was detained on remand.
8.  On 25 November 1999 the applicant was charged with crimes against humanity and genocide.
9.  On 26 July 2000 the prosecutor drafted the bill of indictment and sent the case to the Riga Regional Court for adjudication. The indictment concerned seven different episodes involving thirteen alleged victims.
10.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant’s new defence counsel requested the Riga Regional Court to postpone at least for three weeks the hearing, which was scheduled for 24 October 2002, so that he would have enough time to acquaint himself with the applicant’s criminal case file.
11.  On 24 October 2002 the hearing was postponed indefinitely due to the responsible judge’s illness.
12.  On an unknown date the applicant’s criminal case was taken over by another judge of the Riga Regional Court. On 14 September 2004 the judge informed the applicant’s defence counsel that the hearing was scheduled for 11 October 2004.
13.  The Riga Regional Court held hearings on 11, 12 and 18 October 2004. The next hearing was scheduled for 13 December 2004. However, on 7 December 2004 the judge informed the applicant that the hearing was postponed to 21 March 2005 due to a protracted examination of another criminal case.
14.  On 21 March 2005 the Riga Regional Court continued examination of the applicant’s criminal case and on 4 April 2005 the court delivered its judgment, acquitting the applicant.
15.  The prosecutor appealed against the judgement. On 19 December 2005 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court. This decision was finalised on 16 March 2006.
16.  On 23 March 2006 the applicant’s defence counsel appealed against the appellate court’s decision of 19 December 2005. With a decision of 28 April 2006 the Senate of the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the appellate court.
17.  On 2 May 2006 the judge of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court scheduled the appeal hearing for 7, 8 and 9 February 2007.
18.  Upon the prosecutor’s request, on 7 February 2007 the appellate court suspended the case pending an expert medical report on the applicant’s capacity to participate in the hearing and to serve a prison sentence.
19.  On 17 April 2007 the court’s decision ordering the forensic examination was forwarded to the State Centre for Forensic Medical Examination. On 24 April 2007 also the applicant’s criminal case file was sent to this institution. On 28 August 2007 the State Centre for Forensic Medical Examination delivered the results of the forensic examination.
20.  Following the applicant’s forensic expertise, the examination of the applicant’s criminal case before the appellate court was continued on 27 and 28 February 2008. On 7 March 2008 the appellate court upheld the judgment of the Riga Regional Court of 4 April 2005 acquitting the applicant. The decision was finalised on 9 May 2008.
21.  On 19 May 2008 the prosecutor appealed against this decision.
22.  With a final decision of 27 August 2008 the Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court.