Democracy
World’s Population
Population
HRF classifies Latvia as democratic.
Latvia is a parliamentary representative democratic republic in which executive authority is exercised by a government led by the prime minister, while the president serves as head of state with largely constitutional functions, including nominating the prime minister and possessing limited veto powers. Legislative power is shared between the government and the unicameral Saeima, a 100-member parliament elected every four years by proportional representation with a 5% electoral threshold, resulting in a fragmented multiparty system in which coalition governments are the norm. Following the 2022 parliamentary elections and subsequent political developments, a new government took office in September 2023, formed by a coalition of the New Unity party, the Union of Greens and Farmers, and The Progressives, under Prime Minister Evika Siliņa.
In Latvia, national elections are largely free and fair. Mainstream opposition parties and candidates are not unfairly excluded, and the competitive, pluralistic political environment, supported by independent oversight and rules on campaign conduct, financing, and media access, helps ensure that electoral competition proceeds without significant or undue hindrance.
Independent media, civil society, and members of the public are generally free to openly criticize or challenge the government. This is supported by a robust civil society operating under a favorable legal framework, a pluralistic and legally protected media environment without clear evidence of systematic government interference, strong protections for freedom of expression without routine censorship, and respect for the right to peaceful assembly, with protests typically proceeding without serious or unfair obstruction.
Institutions remain independent and generally function as effective checks on government authority. The country maintains a robust framework for judicial independence that has not been significantly weakened by government reforms, and judicial and regulatory bodies continue to operate autonomously, including reviewing and overturning executive actions. Executive and oversight institutions also function within a legal framework that largely preserves their independence, enabling effective and fair accountability of public officials, as demonstrated by ongoing anti-corruption investigations and high-profile convictions.
In Latvia, national elections are largely free and fair. The government has not unfairly excluded mainstream opposition parties or candidates from elections, with competitive and pluralistic contests producing coalition governments. Similarly, Latvia’s legal and institutional framework has generally ensured fair electoral competition, with independent oversight and rules on campaign conduct, financing, and media access preventing significant or unfair hindrance to mainstream opposition parties or candidates.
The Latvian government has not unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections. The 100-member unicameral parliament (“Saeima”) is elected for a four-year term through a proportional open-list system in five multi-member constituencies. A nationwide 5% electoral threshold applies for seat allocation, contributing to a fragmented multiparty system in which coalition governments are the norm and government formation typically requires post-election negotiations. To illustrate, in the October 2022 Latvian parliamentary election, voters allocated all 100 seats in the unicameral Saeima among seven parties, producing a fragmented result in which no single party approached an outright majority (51 seats). The incumbent centre-right New Unity (JV), led by then-Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, secured 19.2% of the vote and 26 seats, marking a substantial gain compared with 2018 but still well short of governing alone. The Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS) followed with 12.6% and 16 seats, while the newly formed United List (AS) secured 11.1% and 15 seats. The National Alliance (NA) secured a position with 9.4% and 13 seats, and three additional parties entered parliament: For Stability! (6.9%, 11 seats), Latvia First (6.3%, 9 seats), and the Progressives (6.2%, 10 seats), the latter entering the Saeima for the first time. The broad dispersion of seats ensured that coalition negotiations were unavoidable. After coalition negotiations, Kariņš formed a three-party government with the United List and the National Alliance in December 2022. That coalition ended in mid-2023 following internal disagreements, and in September 2023, it was replaced by a new three-party government led by Evika Siliņa of New Unity. Following the results, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) concluded that “[t]he elections were competitive and pluralistic.” At the same time, OSCE noted that several legal restrictions on candidacy, including requirements for candidates to attest to sufficient knowledge of the state language, as well as the continued ineligibility of persons who were affiliated with Soviet-era security services or the Communist Party, challenge the principles of non-discrimination.
Similarly, the Latvian government has not unfairly or significantly hindered a real, mainstream opposition party’s or candidate’s electoral campaign. The electoral campaign framework is primarily governed by the Law on Pre-Election Campaign, complemented by the Law on Financing of Political Organizations, the Law on Parliamentary Elections, and relevant media legislation. Together, these laws regulate various aspects of electoral campaigns and ensure that candidates enjoy equal conditions for campaigning and that state resources may not be used to favour any political party. Additionally, the laws establish media-related requirements, including the provision of equal free airtime to all registered contestants and requirements for unbiased coverage. These rules are implemented through institutional arrangements, most notably Latvia’s Central Election Commission (“Centrālā vēlēšanu komisija”, CEC), a functionally independent state institution that organizes elections whose members are elected for a fixed term by the Saeima (seven members) and the Supreme Court (one member). The CEC administers and supervises elections and resolves election-related complaints.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Latvia has a robust civil society, with tens of thousands of registered civil society organizations (CSOs), operating under a supportive legal framework. The government maintains a pluralistic and legally protected media environment in which public and private outlets operate independently, with no clear evidence of systematic government manipulation of coverage. Similarly, Latvia generally protects freedom of expression without systematic censorship of dissent, and the government has generally respected the right to peaceful assembly, with protests proceeding without serious or unfair interference.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. Latvia has a robust civil society, with tens of thousands of registered CSOs operating across spheres ranging from human rights and social support to environmental and animal protection. Latvia actively supports CSOs through the Public Benefit Organisation (PBO) framework, which grants eligible associations and foundations a special legal status recognising their contribution to the public good. PBO status enables organisations to receive tax-deductible donations and access certain public funding opportunities while also requiring enhanced transparency and reporting obligations. In this vein, there is no evidence that Latvia actively or systematically obstructs the functioning of CSOs on its territory.
The Latvian government has not heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor. Latvia is home to numerous public and independent media outlets, offering a wide range of political views. Media independence is safeguarded by the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media and the Electronic Media Law, which guarantee freedom of expression, prohibit censorship, and establish the legal framework for the operation of print, broadcast, and online media. Media oversight is exercised by the National Electronic Mass Media Council (“Nacionālā elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu padome,” NEPLP), an independent regulatory authority appointed by parliament, responsible for licensing the media outlets. Available evidence does not indicate that the government has exerted pressure on public broadcasters to skew their coverage in its favor. Private broadcasters dominate television viewership, led by commercial channels such as TV3. Independent outlets have reported critically on government policies without facing systematic retaliation or pressure to adjust their programming or coverage.
The government has not seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech. Article 100 of the Latvian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and prohibits censorship. This principle is further elaborated in the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media and the Freedom of Information Law. In compliance with its domestic law, the government has not posed barriers to media and CSOs, which are not subject to prior censorship. However, media regulation and access to information have been restricted in specific contexts, particularly on national security grounds following Russia’s war in Ukraine, including bans on Russian media outlets and limitations on Russian-language broadcasting. For example, in August 2022, the NEPLP banned around 20 Russian media outlets, deeming them a threat to national security. These measures included bans on Russian television channels and restrictions on Russian-language broadcasting, primarily targeting Kremlin-controlled outlets accused of spreading disinformation. This action was largely regarded as a proportional response in light of Latvia’s national security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In a more controversial case, in December 2022, the regulator revoked the Latvian broadcasting licence of the exiled Russian television channel TV Rain (“Dozhd”), citing content that allegedly supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and breaches of Latvian media law. This decision attracted criticism and was subsequently overturned by a Latvian court in 2025.
Finally, the government has not seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings. Latvia’s legal framework generally protects peaceful assembly under Section 103 of the Constitution, and it operates mainly through a prior-notification system, under which organizers inform local authorities in advance of a protest, under the Law on Meetings, Street Processions and Pickets (with a notification typically submitted at least three days in advance). While Latvia temporarily derogated from these guarantees during the COVID-19 emergency (2020-2021), protests and gatherings have otherwise proceeded without major interference. For example, in November 2025, a large-scale protest in Riga against the government’s proposed withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention was allowed to proceed, with police estimating attendance at approximately 10,000 people. The demonstration was peacefully managed by authorities, and there were no reports of dispersal, arrests, or excessive use of force.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the governing authority. Latvia maintains a robust framework for judicial independence that has not been significantly weakened by government reforms. Latvia’s judicial and regulatory bodies have continued to operate independently, including reviewing and overturning executive actions. Similarly, the executive and oversight institutions continue to operate within a generally robust legal framework that preserves their functional independence. Accordingly, Latvia’s institutions have generally enabled effective and fair accountability of public officials, as evidenced by ongoing anti-corruption investigations and high-profile convictions.
The government has not subjected judicial institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. In Latvia, judicial independence is protected under Section 83 of Latvia’s Constitution, stating that “[j]udges shall be independent and subject only to the law.” This constitutional guarantee is further elaborated in ordinary legislation, notably the Law on Judicial Power, and is operationalised through a system of judicial governance that combines administrative oversight with institutional safeguards for judicial autonomy. The Ministry of Justice, through its Courts Office (“Tiesu administrācija”), is responsible for the institutional and administrative management of district, city, and regional courts, but this role does not extend to influencing judicial decision-making or the content of judgments, which remains the exclusive competence of judges. Another oversight body is the Judicial Council (“Tieslietu padome”), an independent constitutional body that contributes to judicial policy and oversees the court system to safeguard judicial independence and quality, notably by evaluating judicial candidates and issuing opinions on judges’ appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal, and performance. Overall, this framework ensures that judicial decision-making remains unaffected by political influence, as proven by the history of a high public perception of the courts in Latvia. At the same time, Latvia’s framework contains structural vulnerabilities that could be used to circumvent or pressure judicial independence, even if no systemic backsliding has been reported so far. Under Article 84 of the Constitution, judicial appointments are confirmed by the parliament and are, in principle, irrevocable once made. This structure does not automatically undermine independence, but it can become a vulnerability if political discretion is not adequately constrained.
Despite this, the government has not undermined institutional independence to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed. Judicial and regulatory bodies in Latvia have continued to exercise their mandate, including a willingness to scrutinize and overturn decisions taken by the executive. For example, in 2020, the Constitutional Court ruled that a decree issued by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development, which halted a local government’s survey on the planned administrative territorial reform, was unconstitutional. The Court found that the minister had unlawfully suspended municipal regulations governing the survey, which in both its procedure and purpose closely resembled a local referendum. By intervening in this manner, the executive had exceeded its statutory powers and infringed upon the constitutional principles of local self-government competence and legality.
The government has not subjected executive or independent oversight institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. Latvia’s legal and institutional framework for enforcement and oversight bodies remains generally robust. The country’s Prosecution Service holds exclusive competence for criminal prosecution in the country. According to the Law on the Prosecution Office, the Prosecutor General is appointed to and removed from office by the parliament. However, once appointed, the Prosecution Office exercises its functions independently. Anti-corruption oversight is entrusted to the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB), an independent public administration body placed under the supervision of the Cabinet of Ministers, limited to the control of the lawfulness of decisions rather than operational direction. Both the Prosecution Office and the KNAB largely function independently and without systematic or undue obstruction from the government.
As a result, Latvia’s institutions have not frequently and unfairly failed to hold government officials accountable. The robust institutional framework outlined above has ensured that public officials can be investigated and held responsible for unlawful conduct. In recent years, KNAB has continued to investigate and refer corruption-related cases involving public institutions. In 2024 alone, it initiated dozens of proceedings and forwarded 19 criminal cases to the Prosecution Service concerning unlawful conduct in state and local government bodies, after which prosecutors and courts pursued these cases through established legal procedures, contributing to effective and fair accountability. For example, in 2021, Aivars Lembergs, the long-serving mayor of Ventspils and one of Latvia’s most influential political figures, was found guilty of serious offences including bribery, money laundering, abuse of office, document forgery, and concealment of assets. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, asset confiscation, and a fine, and was taken into custody in the courtroom. Appeal proceedings later modified the detention arrangements, but did not overturn the finding of criminal liability. Over the course of the case, Lembergs remained formally barred from exercising the mayoral role.
HRF classifies Latvia as democratic.
Latvia is a parliamentary representative democratic republic in which executive authority is exercised by a government led by the prime minister, while the president serves as head of state with largely constitutional functions, including nominating the prime minister and possessing limited veto powers. Legislative power is shared between the government and the unicameral Saeima, a 100-member parliament elected every four years by proportional representation with a 5% electoral threshold, resulting in a fragmented multiparty system in which coalition governments are the norm. Following the 2022 parliamentary elections and subsequent political developments, a new government took office in September 2023, formed by a coalition of the New Unity party, the Union of Greens and Farmers, and The Progressives, under Prime Minister Evika Siliņa.
In Latvia, national elections are largely free and fair. Mainstream opposition parties and candidates are not unfairly excluded, and the competitive, pluralistic political environment, supported by independent oversight and rules on campaign conduct, financing, and media access, helps ensure that electoral competition proceeds without significant or undue hindrance.
Independent media, civil society, and members of the public are generally free to openly criticize or challenge the government. This is supported by a robust civil society operating under a favorable legal framework, a pluralistic and legally protected media environment without clear evidence of systematic government interference, strong protections for freedom of expression without routine censorship, and respect for the right to peaceful assembly, with protests typically proceeding without serious or unfair obstruction.
Institutions remain independent and generally function as effective checks on government authority. The country maintains a robust framework for judicial independence that has not been significantly weakened by government reforms, and judicial and regulatory bodies continue to operate autonomously, including reviewing and overturning executive actions. Executive and oversight institutions also function within a legal framework that largely preserves their independence, enabling effective and fair accountability of public officials, as demonstrated by ongoing anti-corruption investigations and high-profile convictions.
In Latvia, national elections are largely free and fair. The government has not unfairly excluded mainstream opposition parties or candidates from elections, with competitive and pluralistic contests producing coalition governments. Similarly, Latvia’s legal and institutional framework has generally ensured fair electoral competition, with independent oversight and rules on campaign conduct, financing, and media access preventing significant or unfair hindrance to mainstream opposition parties or candidates.
The Latvian government has not unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections. The 100-member unicameral parliament (“Saeima”) is elected for a four-year term through a proportional open-list system in five multi-member constituencies. A nationwide 5% electoral threshold applies for seat allocation, contributing to a fragmented multiparty system in which coalition governments are the norm and government formation typically requires post-election negotiations. To illustrate, in the October 2022 Latvian parliamentary election, voters allocated all 100 seats in the unicameral Saeima among seven parties, producing a fragmented result in which no single party approached an outright majority (51 seats). The incumbent centre-right New Unity (JV), led by then-Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, secured 19.2% of the vote and 26 seats, marking a substantial gain compared with 2018 but still well short of governing alone. The Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS) followed with 12.6% and 16 seats, while the newly formed United List (AS) secured 11.1% and 15 seats. The National Alliance (NA) secured a position with 9.4% and 13 seats, and three additional parties entered parliament: For Stability! (6.9%, 11 seats), Latvia First (6.3%, 9 seats), and the Progressives (6.2%, 10 seats), the latter entering the Saeima for the first time. The broad dispersion of seats ensured that coalition negotiations were unavoidable. After coalition negotiations, Kariņš formed a three-party government with the United List and the National Alliance in December 2022. That coalition ended in mid-2023 following internal disagreements, and in September 2023, it was replaced by a new three-party government led by Evika Siliņa of New Unity. Following the results, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) concluded that “[t]he elections were competitive and pluralistic.” At the same time, OSCE noted that several legal restrictions on candidacy, including requirements for candidates to attest to sufficient knowledge of the state language, as well as the continued ineligibility of persons who were affiliated with Soviet-era security services or the Communist Party, challenge the principles of non-discrimination.
Similarly, the Latvian government has not unfairly or significantly hindered a real, mainstream opposition party’s or candidate’s electoral campaign. The electoral campaign framework is primarily governed by the Law on Pre-Election Campaign, complemented by the Law on Financing of Political Organizations, the Law on Parliamentary Elections, and relevant media legislation. Together, these laws regulate various aspects of electoral campaigns and ensure that candidates enjoy equal conditions for campaigning and that state resources may not be used to favour any political party. Additionally, the laws establish media-related requirements, including the provision of equal free airtime to all registered contestants and requirements for unbiased coverage. These rules are implemented through institutional arrangements, most notably Latvia’s Central Election Commission (“Centrālā vēlēšanu komisija”, CEC), a functionally independent state institution that organizes elections whose members are elected for a fixed term by the Saeima (seven members) and the Supreme Court (one member). The CEC administers and supervises elections and resolves election-related complaints.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Latvia has a robust civil society, with tens of thousands of registered civil society organizations (CSOs), operating under a supportive legal framework. The government maintains a pluralistic and legally protected media environment in which public and private outlets operate independently, with no clear evidence of systematic government manipulation of coverage. Similarly, Latvia generally protects freedom of expression without systematic censorship of dissent, and the government has generally respected the right to peaceful assembly, with protests proceeding without serious or unfair interference.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. Latvia has a robust civil society, with tens of thousands of registered CSOs operating across spheres ranging from human rights and social support to environmental and animal protection. Latvia actively supports CSOs through the Public Benefit Organisation (PBO) framework, which grants eligible associations and foundations a special legal status recognising their contribution to the public good. PBO status enables organisations to receive tax-deductible donations and access certain public funding opportunities while also requiring enhanced transparency and reporting obligations. In this vein, there is no evidence that Latvia actively or systematically obstructs the functioning of CSOs on its territory.
The Latvian government has not heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor. Latvia is home to numerous public and independent media outlets, offering a wide range of political views. Media independence is safeguarded by the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media and the Electronic Media Law, which guarantee freedom of expression, prohibit censorship, and establish the legal framework for the operation of print, broadcast, and online media. Media oversight is exercised by the National Electronic Mass Media Council (“Nacionālā elektronisko plašsaziņas līdzekļu padome,” NEPLP), an independent regulatory authority appointed by parliament, responsible for licensing the media outlets. Available evidence does not indicate that the government has exerted pressure on public broadcasters to skew their coverage in its favor. Private broadcasters dominate television viewership, led by commercial channels such as TV3. Independent outlets have reported critically on government policies without facing systematic retaliation or pressure to adjust their programming or coverage.
The government has not seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech. Article 100 of the Latvian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and prohibits censorship. This principle is further elaborated in the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media and the Freedom of Information Law. In compliance with its domestic law, the government has not posed barriers to media and CSOs, which are not subject to prior censorship. However, media regulation and access to information have been restricted in specific contexts, particularly on national security grounds following Russia’s war in Ukraine, including bans on Russian media outlets and limitations on Russian-language broadcasting. For example, in August 2022, the NEPLP banned around 20 Russian media outlets, deeming them a threat to national security. These measures included bans on Russian television channels and restrictions on Russian-language broadcasting, primarily targeting Kremlin-controlled outlets accused of spreading disinformation. This action was largely regarded as a proportional response in light of Latvia’s national security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In a more controversial case, in December 2022, the regulator revoked the Latvian broadcasting licence of the exiled Russian television channel TV Rain (“Dozhd”), citing content that allegedly supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and breaches of Latvian media law. This decision attracted criticism and was subsequently overturned by a Latvian court in 2025.
Finally, the government has not seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings. Latvia’s legal framework generally protects peaceful assembly under Section 103 of the Constitution, and it operates mainly through a prior-notification system, under which organizers inform local authorities in advance of a protest, under the Law on Meetings, Street Processions and Pickets (with a notification typically submitted at least three days in advance). While Latvia temporarily derogated from these guarantees during the COVID-19 emergency (2020-2021), protests and gatherings have otherwise proceeded without major interference. For example, in November 2025, a large-scale protest in Riga against the government’s proposed withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention was allowed to proceed, with police estimating attendance at approximately 10,000 people. The demonstration was peacefully managed by authorities, and there were no reports of dispersal, arrests, or excessive use of force.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the governing authority. Latvia maintains a robust framework for judicial independence that has not been significantly weakened by government reforms. Latvia’s judicial and regulatory bodies have continued to operate independently, including reviewing and overturning executive actions. Similarly, the executive and oversight institutions continue to operate within a generally robust legal framework that preserves their functional independence. Accordingly, Latvia’s institutions have generally enabled effective and fair accountability of public officials, as evidenced by ongoing anti-corruption investigations and high-profile convictions.
The government has not subjected judicial institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. In Latvia, judicial independence is protected under Section 83 of Latvia’s Constitution, stating that “[j]udges shall be independent and subject only to the law.” This constitutional guarantee is further elaborated in ordinary legislation, notably the Law on Judicial Power, and is operationalised through a system of judicial governance that combines administrative oversight with institutional safeguards for judicial autonomy. The Ministry of Justice, through its Courts Office (“Tiesu administrācija”), is responsible for the institutional and administrative management of district, city, and regional courts, but this role does not extend to influencing judicial decision-making or the content of judgments, which remains the exclusive competence of judges. Another oversight body is the Judicial Council (“Tieslietu padome”), an independent constitutional body that contributes to judicial policy and oversees the court system to safeguard judicial independence and quality, notably by evaluating judicial candidates and issuing opinions on judges’ appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal, and performance. Overall, this framework ensures that judicial decision-making remains unaffected by political influence, as proven by the history of a high public perception of the courts in Latvia. At the same time, Latvia’s framework contains structural vulnerabilities that could be used to circumvent or pressure judicial independence, even if no systemic backsliding has been reported so far. Under Article 84 of the Constitution, judicial appointments are confirmed by the parliament and are, in principle, irrevocable once made. This structure does not automatically undermine independence, but it can become a vulnerability if political discretion is not adequately constrained.
Despite this, the government has not undermined institutional independence to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed. Judicial and regulatory bodies in Latvia have continued to exercise their mandate, including a willingness to scrutinize and overturn decisions taken by the executive. For example, in 2020, the Constitutional Court ruled that a decree issued by the Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development, which halted a local government’s survey on the planned administrative territorial reform, was unconstitutional. The Court found that the minister had unlawfully suspended municipal regulations governing the survey, which in both its procedure and purpose closely resembled a local referendum. By intervening in this manner, the executive had exceeded its statutory powers and infringed upon the constitutional principles of local self-government competence and legality.
The government has not subjected executive or independent oversight institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. Latvia’s legal and institutional framework for enforcement and oversight bodies remains generally robust. The country’s Prosecution Service holds exclusive competence for criminal prosecution in the country. According to the Law on the Prosecution Office, the Prosecutor General is appointed to and removed from office by the parliament. However, once appointed, the Prosecution Office exercises its functions independently. Anti-corruption oversight is entrusted to the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB), an independent public administration body placed under the supervision of the Cabinet of Ministers, limited to the control of the lawfulness of decisions rather than operational direction. Both the Prosecution Office and the KNAB largely function independently and without systematic or undue obstruction from the government.
As a result, Latvia’s institutions have not frequently and unfairly failed to hold government officials accountable. The robust institutional framework outlined above has ensured that public officials can be investigated and held responsible for unlawful conduct. In recent years, KNAB has continued to investigate and refer corruption-related cases involving public institutions. In 2024 alone, it initiated dozens of proceedings and forwarded 19 criminal cases to the Prosecution Service concerning unlawful conduct in state and local government bodies, after which prosecutors and courts pursued these cases through established legal procedures, contributing to effective and fair accountability. For example, in 2021, Aivars Lembergs, the long-serving mayor of Ventspils and one of Latvia’s most influential political figures, was found guilty of serious offences including bribery, money laundering, abuse of office, document forgery, and concealment of assets. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, asset confiscation, and a fine, and was taken into custody in the courtroom. Appeal proceedings later modified the detention arrangements, but did not overturn the finding of criminal liability. Over the course of the case, Lembergs remained formally barred from exercising the mayoral role.
