Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
A Lithuanian gangster accused of two murders in his home country has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds in a deportation farce after claiming he was too depressed to leave Britain. NAME_1 repeatedly stalled efforts to extradite him, claiming they breached his human rights. The 52-year-old, who is wanted for 22 crimes in Lithuania, spun out the legal battle for nearly five years by insisting he was mentally ill, leaving the British public to foot the bill. Depression claim: In January last year, NAME_1 was admitted to Broadmoor on health grounds but by June his condition had improved and he was returned to Belmarsh Prison (above) Yesterday judges at the European Court of Human Rights criticised his 'manifestly ill-founded' case and ruled the alleged killer should be put on a plane home. In Lithuania he is accused of 22 crimes including two murders, robbery and extortion between

Summary:
1. NAME_1, 52, is wanted for 22 crimes in Lithuania.
2. He spun out legal battle for nearly five years by insisting he was mentally ill.
3. In Lithuania he is accused of two murders, robbery and extortion.
4. European Court of Human Rights criticised his' manifestly ill - founded' case.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Provide two versions of response separated with exactly 6 asterisk symbols: ******.
user