CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s265248CF { font-family:Arial; -aw-import:ignore } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B48E6E7 { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:left; -aw-tabstop-pos:28.35pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAFB630D2 { -aw-field-start:true } .s553EAFB6 { -aw-field-code:' REF mocentre \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sFABF527C { text-decoration:none; -aw-ignore:true } .s3193D72F { -aw-field-separator:true } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sED0D64B1 { -aw-field-end:true } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8DF1C529 { -aw-field-code:' REF personalfile \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s969B5749 { -aw-bookmark-end:_100000F } .sD9370BF0 { width:14.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE4604AFD { width:11.77pt; display:inline-block } .s67718B5F { width:9.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s42D84ACF { width:8.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC9CD7CC9 { width:11.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7D755C9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.95pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.75pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'-'; -aw-list-number-styles:'bullet'; -aw-list-padding-sml:17.75pt } .sB2DDB182 { -aw-import:ignore } .sB855E94C { width:17.75pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .s91421C8F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.95pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.75pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'(%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'1'; -aw-list-padding-sml:7.08pt } .s76B6A110 { width:7.08pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .s4A75F52C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.95pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.75pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'(%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'2'; -aw-list-padding-sml:7.08pt } .s6A849D3F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.95pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.75pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'(%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'3'; -aw-list-padding-sml:7.76pt } .s1056C6B5 { width:7.76pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s72CE13F2 { font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA0726AE0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s141FA410 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5C18E360 { -aw-field-code:' REF diagnosis \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s25A8A28A { -aw-field-code:' REF treatment \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sD61BEE11 { -aw-field-code:' REF storage \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s84DF6A4B { -aw-field-code:' REF medicalunit \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sBDBB5F16 { -aw-field-code:' REF hearing \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s97187864 { -aw-field-code:' REF healthcomplaint \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sE379AD63 { -aw-field-code:' REF appeal \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sC7592618 { -aw-field-code:' REF hospital \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s96199E92 { -aw-field-code:' REF caselaw1 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sB49482F7 { -aw-field-code:' REF caselaw2 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s716A4C80 { -aw-field-code:' REF search \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s25DBFF84 { -aw-field-code:' REF director \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s55DEAE4B { -aw-bookmark-end:educationalsupervision1 } .s21DC2CEA { -aw-field-code:' REF colsededinstitution ' } .sC5987EA0 { -aw-field-code:' REF mission \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sABF053 { -aw-field-code:' REF preventivework1 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s723362A4 { -aw-field-code:' REF preventivework \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s2E0B2BB2 { -aw-field-code:' REF detentionorder \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sA4EF0C63 { -aw-field-code:' REF interimcustoddy \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sFD3A64F8 { -aw-field-code:' REF regionalcourt \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s9BE37BD5 { -aw-field-code:' REF purpose \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s2315580E { -aw-field-code:' REF specificoffence \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sB6E8F0B4 { -aw-field-code:' REF wording \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s7AD92CD7 { -aw-field-code:' REF punitive \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sA5CCD303 { -aw-field-code:' REF quashing \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s204C9453 { -aw-field-code:' REF criminalrefusal \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s8ED1EF38 { -aw-field-code:' REF colsededinstitution \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s5CB483E5 { -aw-field-code:' REF petition \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s8A2B616F { -aw-field-code:' REF deprivationliberty \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s45B318C1 { -aw-field-code:' REF educationalsupervision1 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sAF721FAB { -aw-field-code:' REF educationalsupervision2 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD6E93869 { -aw-field-code:' REF minor ' } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC262B0F6 { -aw-field-code:' REF grandfather \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s9A005C97 { -aw-field-code:' REF gov \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s641D6B4C { -aw-field-code:' REF gov ' } .s88ED5CD2 { -aw-field-code:' REF ccp1 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s9E0D0C73 { -aw-field-code:' REF ccp2 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s782F15F4 { -aw-field-code:' REF procedure \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5E8D59C { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:42.55pt } .sB1D1E226 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:320.35pt } .s71D190B9 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:42.55pt } .sBC118B0 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:320.35pt }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 47152/06)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   14 November 2013     THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 23/03/2016   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Blokhin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Julia Laffranque, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković, Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 47152/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Ivan Borisovich Blokhin (“the applicant”), on 1 November 2006. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Novikov, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders had been unlawful, that the conditions of his detention there had been inhuman, and that the proceedings against him had been unfair. 4. On 29 September 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Novosibirsk. A. The applicant’s background and medical condition 6. The applicant’s parents were deprived of their parental responsibility and he was brought up by his grandfather, who was his guardian. 7 . The applicant was twelve years old at the material time. He suffered from an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (a mental and neurobehavioural disorder characterised by either substantial attention difficulties, or hyperactivity and impulsiveness, or a combination of the two) and enuresis (a disorder involving urinary incontinence). 8 . On 27 December 2004 and 19 January 2005 he was examined by a neurologist and a psychiatrist. He was prescribed medication, regular supervision by a neurologist and a psychiatrist and regular psychological counselling. B. Pre-investigation inquiry regarding the applicant 9. On 3 January 2005 the applicant was at the home of his nine-year old neighbour S. when he was arrested and taken to the police station of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk. He was not informed of the reasons for the arrest. 10 . According to the applicant, he was put in a cell that had no windows and the lights in the cell were turned off. After he had spent about an hour in the dark, he was questioned by a police officer. The police officer told him that S. had accused him of extortion. He urged the applicant to confess, saying that if he did he would be immediately released, whereas if he refused he would be placed in custody. The applicant signed a confession statement. The police officer then immediately telephoned the applicant’s grandfather to tell him that the applicant was at the police station and could be taken home. When his grandfather arrived at the police station, the applicant retracted his confession and protested his innocence. 11. The Government disputed the applicant’s account of the events at the police station. They submitted that the applicant had been asked to give an “explanation” rather than being formally questioned, that he had been interviewed by a police officer who had pedagogical training, and that he had been apprised of his right to remain silent. He had not been subjected to any pressure or intimidation. His grandfather had been present during the interview. 12 . On the same day the applicant’s grandfather signed a written statement describing the applicant’s character and way of life. He stated that two days earlier he had seen the applicant in possession of some money. When asked where the money had come from, the applicant had said that he had got it from his father. 13 . On 12 January 2005 the Department of the Interior of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant. Relying on the applicant’s confession and the statements of S. and his mother, it found it to be established that on 27 December 2004 and 3 January 2005 the applicant had extorted money from S. His actions therefore contained elements of the criminal offence of extortion, punishable under Article 163 of the Criminal Code. However, given that the applicant was below the statutory age of criminal responsibility he could not be prosecuted for his actions. 14. On 3 February 2005 the applicant’s grandfather complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk that the applicant, a minor suffering from a psychological disorder, had been intimidated and then questioned in the absence of his guardian and that his confession had been obtained under duress. The grandfather requested that the confession statement be declared inadmissible as evidence and that the pre-investigation inquiry be closed on account of lack of evidence of an offence, rather than the applicant’s age. 15. On 8 June 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk quashed the decision of 12 January 2005, finding that the pre‑investigation inquiry had been incomplete. It ordered a further pre-investigation inquiry. 16. On 6 July 2005 the Department of the Interior of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant, for the same reasons as before. 17. During the following months the applicant’s grandfather lodged several complaints with prosecutor’s offices of various levels, asking for a fresh examination of the case against the applicant. He complained that the applicant’s confession had been obtained as a result of intimidation by the police; in particular, he had been placed in a dark cell for an hour and he had then been questioned by a police officer in the absence of a guardian, psychologist or teacher. The police officer had coerced the applicant into signing the confession statement without the benefit of legal advice. He had then issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not reached the statutory age of criminal responsibility, while stating at the same time that the applicant’s involvement in extortion had been established. 18. By letters of 4 August, 9 November and 16 December 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk and the prosecutor’s office of the Novosibirsk Region replied that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant on grounds of his age. He therefore did not have the status of a suspect or a defendant. On 3 January 2005 he had been asked to give an “explanation” rather than questioned by the police. In those circumstances the participation of a lawyer, psychologist or teacher had not been mandatory. There was no evidence that the applicant had been held in a dark cell before the interview. That the applicant had committed extortion had been established on the basis of the statements of S. and his mother and the applicant’s admission of guilt during the interview of 3 January 2005. C. Detention order 19 . On 10 February 2005 the Department of the Interior of the Sovetskiy District asked the Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk to order the applicant’s placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. It noted that the applicant had a history of delinquency, such as several instances of disorderly behaviour and extortion committed between 2002 and 2004. He had been detained in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders in September 2004. His parents had been deprived of parental responsibility and he lived with his grandfather, who was also his guardian. The applicant spent most of his time on the streets committing delinquent acts or in a computer club. On 27 December 2004 he had committed a further act of extortion. On account of his age, no criminal proceedings had been instituted. In view of those factors, it was in his interest to place him in the detention centre for thirty days to prevent him for committing further delinquent acts and to “correct” his behaviour. 20 . On 21 February 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court held a hearing. The applicant and his grandfather attended and asked the court to refuse the Department of the Interior’s request. They submitted medical certificates confirming that the applicant suffered from a psychological disorder and enuresis. Court-appointed counsel was also present at the hearing but, according to the applicant, he remained passive throughout the proceedings. 21 . On the same day the court ordered the applicant’s placement in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for thirty days. Referring to section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act (see paragraph 58 below), it held as follows: “Having heard the parties to the proceedings and having examined the materials submitted by them, the court considers that the request must be allowed for the following reasons: [the applicant] is registered in the database of [the Juvenile Department of the police]; he was previously placed in the [temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders] for behaviour correction but did not draw the proper conclusions and committed further delinquent acts; the preventive measures put in place by the inspection [on juvenile issues] and by the guardian have not produced results, which shows that [the applicant] has not learnt his lesson. [The applicant] must be placed in the [temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders] for thirty days for behaviour correction ...” The court further noted that it had been established on the basis of a written statement by S.’s mother and the applicant’s confession statement that the applicant had committed delinquent acts on 27 December 2004 and 3 January 2005. His guardian’s submission that he had not committed those acts was therefore unconvincing. D. Detention in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders 22. On 21 February 2005 the applicant was placed in the Novosibirsk temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, where he remained until 23 March 2005. 1. The applicant’s description of the conditions of detention in the centre 23. According to the applicant, he had shared his bedroom in the centre with seven other inmates. The lights were kept on all night. 24. During the day inmates were forbidden to lie on their beds or to enter the bedroom. They had to spend the whole day in a large empty room which had no furniture or sports equipment. On a few occasions they were given a chess set and other board games. They were allowed to go out into the yard only twice during the applicant’s thirty-day stay in the centre. 25. Inmates had classes twice a week for about three hours. They had mathematics and Russian grammar classes only. They were not taught any other courses from the officially approved secondary school curriculum. About twenty children of different ages and school levels were taught together in one class. 26. The supervisors applied collective punishment to the inmates. If one of them committed a breach of the centre’s strict regime, all inmates were forced to stand in line against the wall without moving, talking or being allowed to sit down. Given that many inmates were psychologically unstable and unruly, because of their socially disadvantaged background, such punishment was applied every day and often lasted for hours. 27. Inmates were not allowed to leave the room where they were assembled. They had to ask for the supervisor’s permission to go to the toilet and were accompanied there in groups of three. They therefore had to wait until such a group was formed before being able to go to the toilet. Given that the applicant suffered from enuresis, the fact that he could not go to the toilet as often as he needed caused him bladder pain and psychological suffering. If his requests for permission to go to the toilet became too frequent, the supervisors punished him by making him do particularly arduous cleaning work. 28. Although the applicant’s grandfather had informed the staff of the centre about the applicant’s enuresis and his attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, the applicant did not receive any treatment. 2. The Government’s description of the conditions of detention 29. According to the Government, each bedroom in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders measured seventeen square metres and was equipped with four beds. Access to the bathrooms and toilets situated on each floor was not limited. 30. The centre had a dining room where meals were served five times a day. There was also a games room and a sports room. Audio and video equipment, educational games and fictional works were available. 31. The supervisors carried out “preventive work” with each inmate of the centre and could apply incentive measures or punishment measures in the form of oral reprimands. Corporal punishment was not used; nor were juvenile inmates ever required to do hard or dirty work. 32 . The centre’s medical unit had all the necessary equipment and medicine. It can be seen from the staff list of the centre submitted by the Government that the medical unit was staffed by a paediatrician, two nurses and a psychologist. According to the Government, each child was examined by the paediatrician on his admission and every day thereafter. Treatment was prescribed when necessary. It could be seen from the applicant’s medical records that he had not informed the doctor about his enuresis. 33. The applicant’s personal file containing, in particular, the information about his medical condition on admission, the preventive work carried out and the punishment applied to him was destroyed after the expiry of the statutory time-limit on storage, in accordance with Order no. 215 of the Ministry of the Interior of 2 April 2004 (see paragraph 65 below). The Government submitted an undated certificate issued by the detention centre’s administration stating that the applicant’s personal file had been burnt, together with other files from 2005, on 17 January 2008. 34. According to the Government, the applicant’s medical records were destroyed for the same reason, in accordance with Order no. 340 of 12 May 2006 of the Ministry of the Interior which provided that medical records were to be stored for three years. 35. The Government submitted a written statement by a supervisor at the detention centre dated 23 December 2010. She confirmed the Government’s description of the conditions of detention in the centre. She also stated that one of the supervisors was always present in the room where the inmates were gathered, which ensured continuity of the educational process. Teachers from the neighbouring school regularly came to the centre so that the inmates could follow the secondary-school curriculum. After their release from the centre, they received an education progress record. She stated that she did not remember the applicant but asserted that she had not received any requests or complaints from him or from any other inmate. 36. The Government also submitted a copy of an agreement of 1 September 2004 between the detention centre and secondary school no. 15 according to which the school undertook to organise secondary-school courses in the centre in accordance with a curriculum developed by the centre. A copy of an undated two-week curriculum was produced by the Government. It included four classes per day on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. 3. The applicant’s medical condition after release from the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders 37. On 23 March 2005 the applicant was released from the detention centre. 38 . On 24 March 2005 he was taken to hospital, where he received treatment for neurosis and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. 39. On 31 August 2005 the applicant was placed in an orphanage. On 1 November 2005 he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital, where he remained until 27 December 2005. 40 . On 4 October 2005 the applicant’s grandfather complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that the applicant, who suffered from a mental disorder, had not received any medical treatment in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, which had caused a deterioration in his condition; nor had he been provided with any educational courses. He did not receive any reply to his complaint. E. Appeals against the detention order 41 . Meanwhile, the applicant’s grandfather appealed against the detention order of 21 February 2005. He submitted, firstly, that the detention was unlawful because the Minors Act did not permit detention for “behaviour correction”. Secondly, he complained that he had not been informed of the decision of 12 January 2005 refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and had therefore been deprived of an opportunity to appeal against it. He further submitted that the court’s finding that the applicant had committed an offence had been based on the statements of S. and his mother and the applicant’s confession statement. However, the applicant had made his confession statement in the absence of his guardian. Nor had a teacher been present. No teacher had been present during the questioning of S. either. Their statements were therefore inadmissible as evidence. Moreover, S. and his mother had not attended the court hearing and had not been heard by the court. Nor had the court verified the applicant’s alibi. Lastly, the applicant’s grandfather complained that the court had not taken into account the applicant’s frail health and had not verified whether his medical condition was compatible with detention. 42. On 21 March 2005 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the detention order of 21 February 2005 on appeal. It found that behaviour correction was not among the grounds listed in section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act for placing a minor in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. Detention for behaviour correction therefore had no basis in domestic law. Moreover, the District Court had not stated reasons why it considered it necessary to detain the applicant. The mere fact that the applicant had committed an offence for which he was not liable to prosecution because of his age could not justify his detention. Such detention would be permissible only if one of the additional conditions listed in section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act (see paragraph 58 below) was met. The Regional Court remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. 43. On 11 April 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings because the Department of the Interior had withdrawn its request for the placement of the applicant in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. The applicant and his grandfather were not informed of the date of the hearing. 44. On 22 March 2006 the applicant’s grandfather lodged an application for supervisory review of the decision of 11 April 2005. He complained that as a result of the discontinuation of the proceedings the applicant had been deprived of an opportunity to prove his innocence in respect of the offence for which he had already unlawfully served a term of detention in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. 45 . On 3 April 2006 the President of the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 11 April 2005. He found, firstly, that, in accordance with section 31.2 § 3 of the Minors Act, a judge examining a request for the placement of a minor in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders had the power either to grant or to reject the request. He had no power to discontinue the proceedings. Secondly, the applicant and his guardian had not been informed of the date of the hearing and had therefore been deprived of an opportunity to make submissions on the issue of discontinuation of the proceedings. 46. On 17 April 2006 the prosecutor of the Novosibirsk Region lodged an application for supervisory review of the Regional Court’s decision of 21 March 2005. 47. On 12 May 2006 the Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 21 March 2005, finding that it had been adopted by an unlawful composition of judges. It remitted the case for a fresh examination on appeal. 48 . On 29 May 2006 the President of the Novosibirsk Regional Court held a fresh appeal hearing and upheld the decision of 21 February 2005 ordering the applicant’s placement in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. He found that the applicant had committed a delinquent act punishable under Article 163 of the Criminal Code but that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against him because he had not reached the statutory age of criminal responsibility. He belonged to a “problem family”; his parents had been deprived of parental responsibility and he was cared for by his grandfather. He played truant from school and spent most of the time on the streets or in a computer club. In those circumstances, it had been necessary, in accordance with section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act, to place him in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for thirty days to prevent him from committing further delinquent acts. The fact that the District Court had referred to “behaviour correction” as a ground for detention had not made the detention order of 21 February 2005 unlawful. The applicant’s detention had been justified by other grounds. Nor could the detention order of 21 February 2005 be quashed on account of the applicant’s frail health, given that it had already been enforced in March 2005. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS A. Relevant domestic law 1. Constitution of the Russian Federation 49. An arrested or detained person or a person accused of a criminal offence is entitled to legal assistance from the time of his or her arrest, placement in custody, or when charges are brought (Article 48 § 2). 2. Criminal Code 50. The Criminal Code fixes the age of criminal responsibility at sixteen years old. For certain offences, including extortion, the age of criminal responsibility is fixed at fourteen years old (Article 20). 3. Code of Criminal Procedure 51 . A suspect or an accused is entitled to legal assistance from the time of the arrest (Articles 46 § 4 (3), 47 § 4 (8) and 49 § 3). 52. The presence of a defence lawyer is mandatory if the suspect or the accused is a minor. If neither the minor nor his guardian has retained a defence lawyer, one must be appointed by the police officer, the investigator, the prosecutor or the judge in charge of the case (Article 51 §§ 1 and 3). 53. A defence lawyer must be present during each questioning of the minor suspect. The presence of a psychologist or a teacher is also mandatory if the suspect is under sixteen years old. The police officer, the investigator or the prosecutor who is in charge of the questioning must ensure that a psychologist or a teacher is present during each questioning (Article 425 §§ 2 to 4). 54. The guardian of a juvenile suspect is entitled to participate in all investigative actions starting from the first questioning (Article 426 §§ 1 and 2 (3)). 55 . Witnesses are to be examined directly by the trial court (Article 278). Statements given by the victim or a witness during the pre‑trial investigation can be read out with the consent of the parties in two cases: (i) if there is a substantial discrepancy between those statements and the testimony before the court; or (ii) if the victim or witness has failed to appear in court (Article 281). 4. Minors Act 56. The Federal Law on the Basic Measures for Preventing Child Neglect and Delinquency of Minors, no. 120-FZ of 24 June 1999 (“the Minors Act”) defines a minor as a person under the age of eighteen years (section 1). 57 . A minor with special educational needs who has committed a delinquent act before reaching the statutory age of criminal responsibility may be placed in a “closed educational institution” for up to three years (section 15(4-7)). The main aims of closed educational institutions are as follows: i) the accommodation, upbringing and education of minors between eight and eighteen years old requiring a special educational approach; ii) the psychological, medical and pedagogical rehabilitation of minors, as well as individual preventive work; iii) the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of minors, and the provision of medical care and of secondary and professional education; iv) the provision of social, psychological and pedagogical assistance to minors with health, behavioural or educational difficulties; v) the organisation of sports, science or other clubs or sections and encouragement of participation by minors in such clubs or sections; vi) the implementation of programmes and policies aimed at developing law-abiding behaviour in minors (section 15(2)). 58 . A minor may only be placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for the shortest possible time necessary for appropriate accommodation to be found, and for a maximum of thirty days (section 22(6)), in the following cases: (a) a minor whose placement in a closed educational institution has been ordered by a court may be placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for the time necessary to prepare his transfer to the closed educational institution (section 22(1)(3) and 22(2)(1) and section 31(1); (b) a minor in respect of whom a request for placement in a closed educational institution is pending before a court may be placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for a period of up to thirty days if it is necessary in order to protect his life or health or to prevent him from committing a further delinquent act, or if he has no fixed residence, has absconded or has failed to appear at court hearings or medical examinations more than twice without a valid reason (sections 22(2)(2) and 26(6)); (c) a minor who has escaped from a closed educational institution may be placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for the time necessary for appropriate accommodation to be found for him (section 22(2)(3)); (d) a minor who has committed a delinquent act before reaching the statutory age of criminal responsibility may be placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders if it is necessary in order to protect his life or health or to prevent him from committing a further delinquent act, or if his identity is unknown, he has no fixed place of residence, resides in a region other than the one where the delinquent act was committed, or if he cannot be immediately placed in the charge of his parents or guardians owing to the remoteness of their place of residence (section 22(2)(4-6)). 59 . The main aims of temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders are as follows: - the temporary detention of juvenile offenders with the aim of protecting their life and health and preventing them from committing further delinquent acts; - individual preventive work with minors with the aim of discovering whether they are involved in the commission of delinquent acts, establishing the circumstances, reasons and conditions conducive to such acts, and informing the competent law-enforcement authorities; - the transfer of minors to closed educational institutions and other measures aimed at finding accommodation for minors temporarily placed in its care (section 22(1)). 60 . Placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders is to be ordered by a judge (section 22(3)(2)) at the request of the local department of the interior, which must submit the following materials in support of the request: evidence confirming that the minor has committed a delinquent act; materials indicating the aims of, and reasons for, the placement of the minor in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders; and materials confirming that such placement is necessary to protect the life or health of the minor or to prevent him from committing a further delinquent act (section 31.1). The minor and his parents or guardians are entitled to study these materials. The materials are then examined by a single judge at a hearing with the participation of the minor concerned, his parents or guardians, defence lawyer, a prosecutor, and representatives of the local department of the interior and of the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. The judge issues a reasoned decision either granting or rejecting the request for the placement of the minor in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders (section 31.2). The minor or his parents, guardians, or defence lawyer may, within ten days, appeal against the decision to a higher court (section 31.3). 5. Instruction on temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders 61. The Instruction on the organisation of the activities of temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders, adopted by Order no. 215 of the Ministry of the Interior on 2 April 2004 (in force at the material time) provides that temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders are managed by the local departments of the interior (§ 4). 62 . On admission to a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, the minor and his belongings must be searched. Prohibited belongings must be confiscated, while money, valuables and other belongings must be deposited with the centre’s accountant (§§ 14 and 15). 63 . Temporary detention centres must be enclosed and the enclosures must be equipped with an alarm system and an entry checkpoint (§ 19). The disciplinary regime is maintained by a duty squad (§ 22). 64 . The director of the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders is responsible for security arrangements, which must ensure the twenty‑four-hour surveillance of inmates, including during their sleep, and must exclude any possibility of unauthorised leaving of the premises by inmates (§ 39). 65 . A personal file must be opened in respect of each minor. It must contain the following information: the documents which served as the basis for the minor’s admission to the centre, the search report, the record of preventive work carried out and of rewards and punishment applied, the medical certificates documenting the minor’s condition on admission, and any others (§ 18). Personal files must be stored for two years and be destroyed after the expiry of that time-limit (Appendix no. 5). 66 . If appropriate, individual preventive work may be carried out with the minors, taking into account their age, conduct, the gravity of the delinquent acts committed and other circumstances (§ 24). In order to make the preventive work more efficient, incentives and punishment may be applied to minors (§ 25). 67 . With the aim of preventing delinquency, the staff of temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders may take the following measures in the context of preventive work: (a) establish the living and educational conditions of the minor’s family, the minor’s personal qualities and interests, his or her reasons for running away from home or for abandoning school, and the facts of the minor’s participation in the commission of any delinquent acts and the circumstances in which they were committed, including information on any accomplices and how any stolen property was disposed of; (b) pass to the law-enforcement authorities any information about those involved in delinquent acts, or any other information that may contribute to the investigation of such delinquent acts; (c) take individual educational measures, with particular emphasis on developing positive qualities and interests, to combat any defects of character and to motivate the minors in studying and working (§ 26). 6. Case-law on placement in temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders 68 . In judgments of 7 and 14 July 2009 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic held that the judge ordering the placement of a minor in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders had no competence to determine the duration of the detention. In accordance with section 22(6) of the Minors Act, placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders was permissible only for the shortest possible time necessary for appropriate accommodation to be found, and for a maximum of thirty days. Were the judge to determine the duration of the detention, that would deprive the above-cited provision of its substance, and the administration of the detention centre of the possibility of releasing the minor before the expiry of the detention period determined by the judge, that is, as soon as appropriate accommodation was found and necessary preventive work completed. 69 . In its case-law review on the application by the courts of the Perm Region of the provisions of the Minors Act, issued on 6 March 2009, the Presidium of the Perm Regional Court held that the judge ordering the placement of a minor in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders had no competence to determine the duration of the detention. It was for the administration of the centre to decide, on the basis of individual circumstances, when the minor could be released or transferred. Such detention should in no case exceed the statutory maximum of thirty days. 70. The Presidium of the Perm Regional Court also held that domestic law did not require the judge to hear witnesses to the delinquent act imputed to the minor before ordering the minor’s placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. However, such witnesses could be questioned if the judge considered it necessary. Further, the fact that the minor had not been given access to the case file could not serve as a ground for rejecting a request for his placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. However, access to the case file should be given if the minor requested it. Lastly, the Presidium of the Perm Regional Court held that the placement order could be enforced only after its confirmation on appeal, except in cases where the placement in the centre was necessary to protect the minor’s life or health. 7. Time-limits for the storage of medical documents 71 . Order no. 493 on documents held by the USSR Ministry of Health and all health-service bodies, institutions, organisations and agencies, including time-limits for their storage, adopted by the USSR Ministry of Health on 30 May 1974, and Order no. 1030 on the approval of official forms of medical documents in the health services, adopted by the USSR Ministry of Health on 4 October 1980 (both in force at the material time), provided that a minor’s medical records were to be stored for ten years (§§ 400 and 40 respectively). B. Relevant international material 1. United Nations Organisation documents 72. Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “States Parties shall ensure that: ... (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.” 73. General comment no. 10 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, dated 25 April 2007 (CRC/C/GC/10), provides, in respect of legal assistance to minors in police custody, as follows: “49. The child must be guaranteed legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his/her defence. CRC does require that the child be provided with assistance, which is not necessarily under all circumstances legal but it must be appropriate. It is left to the discretion of the States parties to determine how this assistance is provided but it should be free of charge ... 52. ... decisions without delay should be the result of a process in which the human rights of the child and legal safeguards are fully respected. In this decision-making process without delay, the legal or other appropriate assistance must be present. This presence should not be limited to the trial before the court or other judicial body, but also applies to all other stages of the process, beginning with the interviewing (interrogation) of the child by the police.” 74. The United Na