6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Lipcani. 7.  After divorcing her husband more than twenty-two years prior to the relevant events, the applicant was living in her own house next to that belonging to her former husband, A.M. On 31 December 2009 A.M. broke into her house and beat her up. He did the same on 19 February 2010, since which date he has remained in the applicant’s house permanently, while the applicant has occasionally sought refuge with her neighbours. 8.  The applicant obtained a medical report confirming that she had been beaten up on 19 February 2010. The applicant and her lawyer have made numerous complaints to the local police, the prosecutor’s office and other authorities, asking for protection for the applicant and for A.M. to be punished. The first such complaint was made on 18 March 2010 and was addressed to the local police. She also complained to other authorities that the local police had been aware of the situation but had done nothing to protect her. 9.  On 27 March 2010 the applicant was again beaten up by A.M. On 30 March 2010 the local police informed her that the events complained of had been confirmed, but that A.M. could not be punished as he was mentally ill. 10.  On 9 June 2010 the Ocniţa police instituted criminal proceedings against A.M. for breaking into the applicant’s house. According to the Government, on 24 June 2010 he was subjected to the preventive measure of an undertaking not to leave town. 11.  On 22 June 2010 a court adopted a protection order, deciding A.M.’s eviction and ordering him to stay away from the applicant and her house. However, that order was not enforced. On 17 July 2010 the applicant was again injured by A.M. in the yard of her house, as confirmed by the police and a medical report. She lodged a new complaint and on 23 July 2010 another court order was issued, similar to that of 22 June 2010. This order was not enforced either. 12.  On 16 August 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against A.M. for failure to abide by the protection order of 22 June 2010. This set of proceedings was subsequently joined to the one instituted on 9 June 2010. 13.  On 26 August 2010, during the criminal proceedings, A.M. underwent a psychiatric examination. The medical commission established that he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and recommended in-patient psychiatric treatment. 14.  On 7 October 2010 a prosecutor submitted the case against A.M. to the court in order to determine whether A.M. should undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment. In his decision the prosecutor noted, inter alia, that A.M.’s medical history revealed that in 1965 he had suffered a blow to his head; from 1981 he had started to believe that his wife wanted to poison him and he had begun beating her; from June to September 1987 he had been treated as an in-patient in a psychiatric hospital and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia; he had been under psychiatric supervision since 1988 and had undergone psychiatric treatment five more times with the same diagnosis, the last treatment period having ending on 25 December 2004; and he had been monitored by the authorities as mentally ill and dangerous to society. The parties did not inform the Court of the outcome of the prosecutor’s request. 15.  In a letter dated 6 December 2010 the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family stated that on 23 November 2010, Police Officers V.V. and R.P. from the local police station and a social assistant had visited the applicant’s house and talked with her and A.M. The latter had refused to leave the house or to sign a document stating that he had been warned not to commit acts of violence against the applicant. 16.  On 5 December 2010 the applicant was again beaten up by A.M. On 16 December 2010 she obtained a third court order, similar to the two already issued. The court noted, inter alia, that on 5 December 2010 A.M. had again beaten the applicant up and that the police had gone to her house the following day and had imposed an administrative sanction on him for intentional destruction of property. On 24 December 2010 the applicant’s neighbour, E.C., gave a witness statement to the Ocniţa police officers. She described the many conflicts that A.M. had had with the applicant and the neighbours, the many visits by the police to the applicant’s house to warn A.M. not to commit acts of violence towards the applicant, and the fact that the head of the local police had often been in contact with her about the situation in the applicant’s house. 17.  On 4 January 2011 the Ocniţa District Court found A.M. guilty of breaking into the applicant’s house. Having regard to the findings of the medical commission, the court absolved A.M. of criminal responsibility because he had committed the crime in a state of insanity. It also decided that A.M. should undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment. 18.  On 14 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyer asked for a copy of the decision of 4 January 2011, stating that she had not been informed of the hearing. Moreover, her client had been unaware of it until the morning of 4 January 2011, when she had been invited to attend court by the local police. Therefore, the applicant’s procedural rights had been breached. On the same day the lawyer asked the local police and the social assistance service about the measures taken to enforce that court decision. 19.  On 21 January 2011 the Ocniţa Police informed the applicant that they did not have the power to evict anyone and that it was the bailiff’s job to do so. 20.  On 24 January 2011 Ocniţa police officers escorted A.M. to a specialised psychiatric hospital for medical treatment. 21.  On 31 January 2011 the Ocniţa prosecutor’s office decided not to start a criminal investigation against Ocniţa Police Officers V.V. and R.P. in respect of an allegation by the applicant that they had been complicit in the private violence committed by A.M.