5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Pruszków, Poland. 6.  The applicant was involved in a conflict with her sister and her sister's common‑law husband, with whom she had shared a flat. On 28 December 2004 the applicant was questioned by the police on suspicion of stealing her sister's microwave and harassing her. The applicant informed the police that she was undergoing psychiatric treatment. 7.  On 31 December 2004 the Warsaw Prosecutor asked the court to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the applicant in view of her mental condition. 8.  On 4 April 2005 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to undergo a six-week psychiatric examination in order to determine whether she could be held criminally responsible in respect of the above mentioned offences of theft and harassment. On 15 April 2005 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He submitted that the applicant herself had already stated that she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment for eight years. There was no reason for the applicant to be placed in a psychiatric hospital. If the court had doubts as to the applicant's condition it could obtain additional evidence from the applicant's existing medical records. On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed this appeal. 9.  On 5 May 2005, following a knife attack on her sister, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and domestic violence. 10.  On 7 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court heard evidence from the applicant and ordered her pre-trial detention until 4 August 2005. The court noted that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. In addition, the court relied on the risk that she would induce witnesses to give false testimony or commit another offence. On 9 May 2005 the applicant was admitted to the Warsaw Detention Centre. 11.  On 12 May 2005 the applicant was charged with domestic violence. 12.  On 20 May 2005 the Regional Psychiatric Hospital (Wojewódzki Szpital Psychiatryczny) informed the District Prosecutor that the applicant could report there on 12 or 13 September 2005 for an examination. On 22 June 2005 the court asked the hospital to schedule an earlier date for the applicant's admission, as the applicant was in pre-trail detention. In reply, the hospital informed the court that the applicant could be admitted on 18 or 19 July 2005. 13.  On 4 July 2005 the prosecutor asked the Warsaw District Court to prolong the applicant's detention in view of the fact that she was to undergo a psychiatric examination. 14.  On 15 July 2005 the Warsaw District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 3 November 2005. The court referred to the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which she had been charged. In addition, it appeared that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony. 15.  On 16 August 2005 the applicant's lawyer made an application for release. He stressed that there had been no reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence. Furthermore, the court had already obtained evidence from witnesses. Finally, from a medical point of view the applicant should not have been kept in detention. On 24 August 2005 the court dismissed the application. On 29 August 2005 the applicant's lawyer lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He stated that applying pre‑trial detention in the applicant's case had been an extremely serious measure. The applicant's condition was serious, which fact had been confirmed by a medical expert, and her prolonged detention had seriously affected her health. The District Court refused to examine the appeal. On 3 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the complaint and restored the deadline for appealing against the decision of 15 July 2005. 16.  Meanwhile, the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 18 July 2005 and discharged on 30 August 2005. 17.  On 22 September 2005 two psychiatrists and a psychologist issued a joint medical opinion. They concluded that the applicant suffered from a delusional disorder. In view of the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant might commit another crime, they recommended her detention in a psychiatric hospital. 18.  On 13 October 2005 the prosecutor terminated the investigation in the applicant's case. 19.  On 25 October 2005 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court established that the applicant had committed the offence that she had been charged with. However, she could not have been held criminally responsible as she had been suffering from a delusional disorder. It further referred to the expert's opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital. The court also prolonged the applicant's detention until 3 February 2006. The court considered that this measure was necessary to prevent the applicant from committing another offence and to ensure the proper conduct of the appeal procedure. The applicant's lawyer appealed against this decision. On 15 December 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 20.  On 2 February 2006 the Warsaw District Court, of its own motion, decided to prolong the applicant's detention until 3 April 2006. The court stressed that on 28 December 2006 it had asked the Psychiatric Commission on Preventive Measures (Komisja Psychiatryczna ds. środków zabezpieczająych) (“the Commission”) to indicate a hospital where the applicant could be placed. However, on 26 January 2006, the Commission replied that it had not yet indicated a hospital for the applicant and asked the court to send the relevant documents. The court further considered that in view of the medical reports in the applicant's case there was a high risk that, once released, the applicant might commit a similar offence. 21.  On 8 March 2006 the Commission recommended that the applicant be placed in the Pruszków Psychiatric Hospital. On 31 March 2006 the court decided to order the applicant's admission to that hospital. It also prolonged the applicant's detention until that time. 22.  The applicant submitted that between 18 April 2006 and 30 June 2006 she had been on hunger strike. 23.  On 4 April 2006 the court asked the Pruszków Psychiatric Hospital when it would be ready to receive the applicant. The hospital replied that due to a strain on resources and a temporary lack of available beds it would not be possible to admit the applicant immediately. 24.  On 30 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the detention centre to the Pruszków Psychiatric Hospital. 25.  According to the information available to the Court the applicant is still in that hospital.