CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 23 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEFD033A4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s9F454055 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD083B52B { width:1.2pt; display:inline-block } .s1043DC39 { width:193.42pt; display:inline-block } .s34F4D0F6 { width:10.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6E5A3B2E { width:220.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA23A4EB0 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCA2F8346 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt }       GRAND CHAMBER               CASE OF BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 47152/06)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   23 March 2016             This judgment is final.   In the case of Blokhin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President ,   Dean Spielmann,   András Sajó,   Işıl Karakaş,   Josep Casadevall,   Luis López Guerra,   Mark Villiger,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ján Šikuta,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Helen Keller,   Aleš Pejchal,   Valeriu Griţco,   Dmitry Dedov,   Robert Spano,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges , and Lawrence Early, Jurisconsult , Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2015 and 7 January 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned 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.V. 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 notice of the application was given to the Government. 5.     On 14 November 2013 a Chamber of the First Section, composed of Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Khanlar Hajiyev, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Julia Laffranque, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković and Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, delivered a judgment in which it unanimously declared the application partly admissible and found that there had been a violation of Article 3, Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention. 6.     On 13 February 2014 the Government requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court. The panel of the Grand Chamber granted the request on 24 March 2014. 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 8.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations. On 9   October 2014, after consulting the parties, the President of the Grand Chamber decided not to hold a hearing but invited the parties to submit further written observations, which they did. In addition, comments were received from the Mental Disability Advocacy Center and the League of Human Rights of the Czech Republic, which had been given leave by the President of the Grand Chamber to take part in the proceedings (Article 36 §   2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Novosibirsk. A.     The applicant’s background and medical condition 10.     At some point before September 2004, the applicant’s parents were deprived of their parental responsibility; the applicant was placed in a local orphanage until his grandfather was assigned as his guardian in October   2004 and the applicant was placed with him. On 28 February 2005 the grandfather’s guardianship was revoked, but he was reinstated as guardian at the beginning of 2006. 11.     From 2002 to 2005, the applicant allegedly committed offences prohibited by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including disorderly acts, aggravated robbery and extortion, alone or in a group of minors. Since he was under the age of criminal responsibility, no criminal proceedings were instituted against him but he was the subject of five pre-investigation inquiries and placed under the supervision of the Juveniles Inspectorate within the Department of the Interior of the Sovetskiy district of Novosibirsk (“the Juveniles Inspectorate”). Moreover, following the fourth inquiry, he was placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders on 21 September 2004 for thirty days. 12 .     According to the applicant’s medical records, 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 – ADHD) and a neurogenic bladder causing enuresis (a disorder involving urinary incontinence). 13 .     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.     The pre-investigation inquiry regarding the applicant 14.     On 3 January 2005 the applicant, who at that time was 12 years old, was at the home of his nine-year old neighbour S. when the latter’s mother, Ms   S., called the police, who came and took the applicant to the police station of the Sovetskiy district of Novosibirsk. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. 15 .     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 around 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 so, he would be released immediately, 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. 16.     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. 17 .     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 his father had given it to him. 18.     S. and his mother were also heard by the police regarding the incident; they claimed that on two occasions, on 27 December 2004 and 3   January 2005, the applicant had extorted 1,000 roubles (RUB) from S., threatening him with violence if he did not hand over the money. 19 .     On 12 January 2005 the Juveniles Inspectorate refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant. Relying on the applicant’s confession and the statements of S. and S.’s 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. 20.     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. 21.     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. 22.     On 6 July 2005 the Juveniles Inspectorate again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant, for the same reasons as before. 23.     During the following months, the applicant’s grandfather lodged several complaints with prosecutors’ 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. 24.     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 the ground 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 been 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, and he had had to wait no more than ten minutes for an officer from the Juveniles Inspectorate to arrive and interview him. That the applicant had committed extortion had been established on the basis of the statements of S. and S.’s mother and the applicant’s admission of guilt during the interview of 3   January 2005. C.     The detention order 25 .     On 10 February 2005 the head of the Sovetskiy district Police Department of Novosibirsk asked the Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk to order the applicant’s placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. 26 .     On 21 February 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court held a hearing which the applicant and his grandfather attended and at which they submitted medical certificates confirming that the applicant suffered from a psychological disorder and enuresis. 27.     On the same day, the court delivered its judgment in which it ordered the applicant’s placement in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for thirty days. It held as follows. “The head of the Sovetskiy district Police Department of Novosibirsk has applied to the court with a request to place [the applicant], who has been registered with the [Juveniles] Inspectorate as a delinquent minor since 4 January 2002, in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for thirty days. On 14 May 2003 [the applicant] committed an offence proscribed by Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility. On 24 July 2003 [the applicant] again committed an offence proscribed by Article   213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility. On 27 August 2004 [the applicant] again committed a criminal offence under Article   161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility. [The applicant] was placed in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for thirty days. The minor lives in unfavourable family conditions in which his grandfather is responsible for his upbringing in so far as possible; [the applicant’s] parents are alcoholics and have a negative influence on their son. Before [the grandfather] was given guardianship status, [the applicant] had lived in an orphanage and studied in school no. 61. At the material time he studied in school no. 163, often played truant from school, and stopped attending school entirely from December onwards. Given that the requisite control over him is absent, the minor spends the major part of his day on the streets, committing socially dangerous offences. On 27 December 2004 [the applicant] committed another offence proscribed by Article 163 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; a criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility. Taking the above-mentioned circumstances into account, [the head of the Police Department] considers it necessary to place [the applicant] in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for a period of thirty days to prevent his further unlawful actions. The representative of the Juveniles Inspectorate supported the request made by the head of the Police Department and explained that [the applicant’s] guardian had requested in writing that his guardianship rights be lifted and the [Inspectorate] had accepted that request. [The applicant] refused to provide any explanations. The [applicant’s] representative [the grandfather] objected to [the applicant’s] placement in the temporary detention centre, having noted that [the applicant] had not committed a criminal offence on 27 December 2004 as he had been with [the grandfather] at a doctor’s surgery for an examination at that time. The lawyer, Ms [R.], asked the court to dismiss the request of the head of the Police Department. The prosecutor asked the court to accept the request and to place [the applicant] in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, taking into account that the documents presented by [the applicant’s] guardian did not confirm that [the applicant] had been at a doctor’s surgery on 27 December 2004 at 1 p.m. or that he had been unable to commit the criminal offence, particularly taking into account the [applicant’s] personality and the fact that he had already committed a number of offences. Having heard the parties to the proceedings and 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 [Juveniles] Inspectorate 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 case-file materials examined by the court confirm that [the applicant] committed a socially dangerous offence: a complaint by Ms [S.] shows that on 27   December 2004, at approximately 1 p.m., [the applicant] extorted 1,000 roubles from her son [S.] in a yard; he accompanied those actions with threats of violence. On 3 January 2005 [the applicant] again came to their house and again extorted 1,000   roubles from her son, having again threatened the son with violence. Explanations by [S.] indicate that on 27 December 2004, at approximately 1 p.m., [the applicant] told [S.] to give him 1,000 roubles in a yard; he accompanied those actions with threats of violence and [S.] gave him the money. On 3 January 2005 [the applicant] again came to their house and requested 1,000 roubles from [S.], having again threatened him with violence. [S.] complained to his mother, who called the police. The court takes into account that those circumstances are corroborated by the statement made by [the applicant], who did not deny that he had received money from [S.] on 27 December 2004, as the latter had been afraid of the applicant. [The applicant] also did not deny that he had come to [S.’s] house on 3 January 2005. A criminal case in respect of the events on 27 December 2004 and 3 January 2005 was not opened as the applicant had not reached the age of criminal responsibility. Having taken these circumstances into account, the court finds unsubstantiated and far-fetched the explanations by the applicant’s guardian that [the applicant] did not commit the offences on 27 December 2004 and 3 January 2005. Having regard to the above-mentioned facts and ruling under section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act, the court grants the request of the head of the Police Department and decides to place the applicant in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for thirty days.” D.     Detention in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders 28.     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 29.     According to the applicant, he had shared his bedroom in the centre with seven other inmates. The lights were kept on all night. 30.     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 contained 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. 31.     Inmates had classes twice a week for around three hours. They had mathematics and Russian grammar classes only. They were not taught any other courses from the officially-approved secondary-school curriculum. Around twenty children of different ages and school levels were taught together in one class. 32.     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 a 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. 33.     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. 34.     Although the applicant’s grandfather had informed the staff of the centre of the applicant’s enuresis and his ADHD, the applicant did not receive any treatment. 2.     The Government’s description of the conditions of detention 35.     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. 36.     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 works of fiction were available. 37.     The supervisors carried out “preventive work” with each inmate of the centre and could apply incentive measures or punitive measures in the form of oral reprimands. Corporal punishment was not used; nor were juvenile inmates ever required to do hard or dirty work. 38 .     The centre’s medical unit had all the necessary equipment and medicine. It could 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 temporary detention centre’s “accounting and statistical record” concerning the applicant that he had not informed the doctor of his enuresis. 39.     The applicant’s personal file, containing, in particular, the information on his medical condition on admission, the preventive work carried out and the punishments applied to him, had been destroyed on 17   January 2008 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 73 below). However, the Government stated that the applicant’s “accounting and statistical record”, referred to above, had been retained since its storage period was unlimited in accordance with Order no.   215 (see paragraph 74 below). 40.     According to the Government, the applicant’s other medical records and logbooks at the temporary detention centre had been destroyed as soon as they were no longer needed, without any records being compiled in this respect. This had been possible because there had been no regulations on storing such documents until Order no. 340 of the Ministry of the Interior had come into force on 12   May 2006 (which provided that medical records were to be stored for three years). 41.     However, 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 with the inmates, 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. 42.     The Government also submitted a copy of an agreement of 1   September 2004 between the detention centre and secondary school no. 15 whereby 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. E.     The applicant’s medical condition after release from the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders 43.     On 23 March 2005 the applicant was released from the detention centre. On the following day he was taken to hospital, where he received treatment for neurosis and ADHD. He remained at the hospital until at least 21 April 2005. 44.     On 31 August 2005 the applicant was placed in an orphanage and, according to an extract from the applicant’s medical record drawn up at the orphanage, he was on the run between 14 September and 11 October 2005 and again between 13 and 23 October 2005. 45.     On 1 November 2005 he was transferred to a children’s psychiatric hospital, where he remained until 27 December 2005. At some point after that, he was returned to his grandfather who had been reinstated as his guardian. 46 .     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 reiterated his complaints to the prosecution authorities in a letter dated 30   November 2005. The prosecutor’s office of the Sovetskiy district of Novosibirsk sent a reply to the applicant’s grandfather on 9 November 2005 and the prosecutor’s office of the Novosibirsk region sent a reply on 16   December 2005, however, both of these dealt exclusively with the procedural issues related to the applicant’s case (see paragraph 24 above) and did not contain any answer to the grandfather’s complaints in so far as they related to the applicant’s health and the conditions of detention. F.     The applicant’s appeals against the detention order 47 .     Meanwhile, on 2 March 2005, 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. 48.     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 66 below) was met. The Regional Court remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. 49.     On 11 April 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings because the head of the Sovetskiy district Police Department of Novosibirsk had withdrawn his 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. 50.     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. 51 .     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 the discontinuation of the proceedings. 52.     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. 53.     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. 54.     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 PRACTICE A.     The Constitution of the Russian Federation 55.     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). B.     The Criminal Code 56.     The Criminal Code fixes the age of criminal responsibility at 16   years of age. For certain offences, including extortion, the age of criminal responsibility is fixed at 14 years of age (Article 20). 57.     Under Article 43 § 2 of the Code, the purposes of criminal punishment are restoration of social justice, reformation of the offender and the prevention of further crimes. 58.     Article 87 § 1 of the Criminal Code regulates the criminal liability of minors, defining them as persons between 14 and 18 years of age, and states that mandatory measures of an educational nature or punishment may be applied to minors who have committed a criminal offence. Article 87 § 2 provides that, where a court relieves a minor of punishment, the minor may still be placed in a special closed educational facility run by a body of the Ministry of Education. C.     The Code of Criminal Procedure 59 .     A suspect or an accused is entitled to legal assistance from the time of arrest (Articles 46 § 4 (3), 47 § 4 (8) and 49 § 3). 60.     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). 61.     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 the age of 16. The police officer, investigator or prosecutor in charge of the questioning must ensure that a psychologist or a teacher is present during each questioning (Article 425 §§   2-4). 62.     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)). 63 .     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). D.     The Minors Act 64.     The Federal Law no. 120-FZ on the basic measures for preventing child neglect and delinquency of minors of 24 June 1999 (“the Minors Act”) defines a minor as a person under the age of 18 (section   1). 65 .     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 18 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)). 66 .     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: (i)     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)); (ii)     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)); (iii)     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)); (iv)     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)). 67 .     The main aims of temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders are as follows: (i)     the temporary detention of juvenile offenders with the aim of protecting their life and health and preventing them from committing further delinquent acts; (ii)     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; (iii)     the transfer of minors to closed educational institutions and other measures aimed at finding accommodation for minors temporarily placed in the centre’s care (section 22(1)). 68 .     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 guardian 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 guardian, 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, guardian, or defence lawyer may, within ten days, appeal against the decision to a higher court (section   31.3). E.     The Instruction on temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders 69.     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), provided that temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders were to be managed by the local departments of the interior (§ 4). 70 .     On admission to a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, the minor and his belongings had to be searched. Prohibited belongings had to be confiscated, while money, valuables and other belongings had to be deposited with the centre’s accountant (§§   14-15). 71 .     Temporary detention centres had to be enclosed and the enclosures equipped with an alarm system and an entry checkpoint (§ 19). The disciplinary regime was maintained by a duty squad (§ 22). 72 .     The director of the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders was responsible for security arrangements, which had to ensure the twenty ‑ four-hour surveillance of inmates, including while asleep, and had to exclude any possibility of unauthorised leaving of the premises by inmates (§ 39). 73 .     A personal file had to be opened in respect of each minor and 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 had to be stored for two years and be destroyed after the expiry of that time-limit (Appendix no. 5). 74.     The temporary detention centre’s “accounting and statistical records” for each minor had to be kept indefinitely in the centre (Appendix   4, endnote   2). 75 .     If appropriate, individual preventive work might 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 might be applied to minors (§ 25). 76 .     With the aim of preventing delinquency, the staff of temporary detention centres for juvenile offenders might take the following measures in the context of preventive work: (i)     establishing 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; (ii)     passing to the law-enforcement authorities any information concerning those involved in delinquent acts, or any other information that may contribute to the investigation of such delinquent acts; (iii)     taking 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). III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS A.     Council of Europe 77.     The relevant parts of Recommendation No. R (87) 20 on social reactions to juvenile delinquency, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 September 1987, state as follows. “... Considering that young people are developing beings and in consequence all measures taken in their respect should have an educational character; Considering that social reactions to juvenile delinquency should take account of the personality and specific needs of minors and that the latter need specialised interventions and, where appropriate, specialised treatment based in particular on the principles embodied in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child; ... Convinced that minors must be afforded the same procedural guarantees as adults; ... Recommends the governments of member states to review, if necessary, their legislation and practice with a view: ... III.     Proceedings against minors 4.     to ensuring that minors are tried more rapidly, avoiding undue delay, so as to ensure effective educational action; ... 8.     to reinforcing the legal position of minors throughout the proceedings, including the police investigation, by recognising, inter alia : –     the presumption of innocence; –     the right to the assistance of a counsel who may, if necessary, be officially appointed and paid by the state; –     the right to the presence of parents or of another legal representative who should be informed from the beginning of the proceedings; –     the right of minors to call, interrogate and confront witnesses; ... –     the right to appeal; –     the right to apply for a review of the measures ordered; ...” 78.     Recommendation Rec(2003)20 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice, adopted on 24 September 2003, in so far as relevant, reads as follows. “15.     Where juveniles are detained in police custody, account should be taken of their status as a minor, their age and their vulner