CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9386A8B3 { width:0.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s103782C4 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; color:#161616 } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sB435C42F { width:1.36pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F6F0E53 { width:22.87pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6D3AF586 { width:135.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA (No. 4) (Applications nos. 4743/21 and 37083/21)   JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 3 March 2026 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful detention of the applicant after the activation of his suspended sentence based on his 2014 conviction • Clear causal link between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty • Court’s findings in Navalnyye v.   Russia (no.   101/15) of violations of Art   6 and Art   7 in respect of the criminal proceedings leading to 2014 conviction relevant • Criminal proceedings had amounted to a “flagrant denial of justice” • Conviction had been based on an unforeseeable application of domestic law • Applicant could not have foreseen to a reasonable degree that his actions would result in a deprivation of liberty Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful detention of the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings on the activation of his suspended sentence based on his 2014 conviction • Deprivation of liberty based on domestic courts’ application by “analogy” of legal provisions not applicable to the applicant’s situation and running counter to their wording • Novel and expansive interpretation of legal provisions contrary to the legal certainty principle Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Life • Real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life, evident from near-fatal poisoning incident and continuing after his return to Russia and throughout his detention • Art   2 applicable • Applicant’s request that domestic courts refuse to order his detention as a preventive measure based on the threat to his life allegedly originating from the State itself • Domestic courts’ disregard of the Court’s judgment in Navalnyye v.   Russia (no.   101/15) in respect of his 2014 conviction, the Court’s interim measure and the Committee of Ministers’ decision and resolutions urging his release • Authorities knew or ought to have known there was real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life but failed to address his Art   2 complaints • Failure to carry out an adequate risk assessment Art 3 (substantive) • Applicant simultaneously subjected to a combination of several forms of ill-treatment in detention cumulatively amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment • Applicant subjected to sleep deprivation for 39   days on an arbitrary basis, including during hunger strike, and whilst experiencing constant and considerable back pain • Applicant’s hair shaved off without any legal basis or valid justification Art 34 • Hinder the exercise of the right of application • Non-compliance with interim measure under Rule   39 to immediately release the applicant   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 3 February 2026   FINAL   03/05/2026     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4), The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Darian Pavli,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   4743/21 and 37083/21) 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 Aleksey Anatolyevich Navalnyy (“the applicant”), on 20 January and 20 July 2021; the decisions to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints alleging that the applicant’s imprisonment posed a serious and immediate danger to his life, about the conditions of his detention and inadequate medical assistance, about the unlawful detention attended by insufficient procedural guarantees, about the unfair proceedings concerning the activation of his suspended sentence, about the ulterior purpose of the applicant’s arrest, detention and the activation of his suspended sentence and about the hindrances of the right to individual application and to declare inadmissible the remainder of application no. 37083/21; the decision to indicate an interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court in application no. 4743/21 and the decision to give priority to that application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court); the observations submitted by the Government in application no.   4743/21; the observations submitted by the applicant; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an   ad hoc   judge, applying Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of the Court by analogy (see   Kutayev v.   Russia , no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 18 November 2025 and 13 January 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s arrest and detention in January 2021, followed by proceedings which culminated in the activation of a suspended prison sentence previously imposed on him in 2014, and his subsequent imprisonment on the basis of that sentence from 2 February 2021. The applicant complained that his detention and imprisonment posed a serious and immediate danger to his life and limb; of the conditions of his detention and the allegedly inadequate medical assistance afforded to him; that his allegedly unlawful detention had been attended by insufficient procedural guarantees; of the allegedly unfair proceedings concerning the activation of his suspended sentence; of the alleged ulterior purpose of his arrest, detention and the activation of his suspended sentence; and of alleged hindrances to the right of individual application. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1976 and died in 2024. He was represented by Ms O. Mikhaylova, a lawyer practising in Moscow, and Ms A. Maralyan, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg [1] . 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin and Mr   A. Fedorov, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicant was a political activist, opposition leader, anti-corruption campaigner and popular blogger. Through his social media accounts, he published material about corruption in Russia and organised protest demonstrations. He was also the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, which carried out and published investigations into alleged corruption by high-ranking Russian government officials. Several judgments of the Court were delivered in applications lodged by the applicant, notably Navalnyye v.   Russia (no.   101/15, § 95, 17   October 2017) and Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 3) (no.   36418/20, 6 June 2023), which are relevant to the present case.         the applicant’s conviction and the court’s Judgment in case n o . 101/15 6 .     On 30 December 2014   the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant and his brother, Oleg Navalnyy, guilty of commercial fraud and money laundering. It sentenced the applicant to a suspended sentence of three and a half years (contingent on his completing five years of probation) and a fine of 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB). He was also ordered to pay damages to the victim. 7 .     Following an appeal by the applicant, on 17 February 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, but quashed the imposition of a fine and the award of damages to the victim. It further specified that the terms of the probation included the following obligations: to notify the specialised State authority responsible for supervising convicted individuals before any change in his permanent place of residence; to inform that authority in advance of any change to his address of actual residence; and to report to that authority – on time – at least twice a month. 8 .     On 17 October 2017 the Court delivered its judgment in the case of Navalnyye (cited above). It found that the judgment of 30 December 2014, as upheld on appeal on 17 February 2015, had violated Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention in respect of the applicant and his brother Oleg Navalnyy. In particular, the Court found under Article 7 of the Convention that the offence of fraud had been “extensively and unforeseeably construed” and that it had not been possible to foresee that the applicant’s and his brother’s conduct would constitute commercial fraud; consequently, it had been equally unforeseeable that their profits would be deemed to constitute the proceeds of crime the use of which could amount to money laundering (ibid., § 68). It further found under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings had been flawed by arbitrariness that   had undermined their fairness in such a fundamental way that it had rendered other criminal-procedure guarantees irrelevant (ibid., §§   83 and 84). The Court also held that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of proceedings (if requested) – failing which the individual measures to be taken in the execution of the judgment in question would remain outstanding, in accordance with the practice of the Committee of Ministers (ibid., § 95). 9.     On 13 March 2018 the applicant and his brother requested the Supreme Court of Russia to quash the judgment of 30 December 2014, as upheld on appeal, and to acquit them, relying on the Court’s judgment of 17   October 2017. 10 .     On 25 April 2018 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia reopened the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s and his brother’s case on the basis of new circumstances – namely, the Court’s judgment of 17   October 2017 in the case of Navalnyye (cited above). It disagreed, however, with the Court’s findings under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. It found that the domestic courts had correctly established that the applicant and his brother had engaged in fraud and money laundering within the meaning of the Russian Criminal Code. The Supreme Court also held that the domestic proceedings had been adversarial and fair and had met the statutory procedural requirements. There were therefore no grounds to amend or to reverse the conviction of 30 December 2014. The applicant’s suspended sentence of three and a half years, contingent on his completing five years of probation, thus remained in force. 11.     In the meantime, on 4 August 2017, the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow allowed an application lodged by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences ( Федеральная служба исполнения наказаний , hereinafter “the FSIN”) and extended the applicant’s probation by one year, until 30 December 2020, on the grounds that in 2017 he had been convicted of three administrative offences relating to the conduct of public assemblies. 12.     The Court found that the three convictions for administrative offences noted in the decision of 4 August 2017 had violated the applicant’s rights under Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 11 of the Convention (see Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14   others, 4   October 2022, and Navalnyy v. Russia [Committee], nos.   67894/17 and 3   others, 11 December 2025).       The applicant’s alleged poisoning, transfer to Germany and the refusal to open a criminal investigation into the incident 13 .     On 20 August 2020 the applicant took a domestic flight from Tomsk to Moscow. During the flight, he suddenly fell ill and lost consciousness. The flight crew had to make an emergency landing in Omsk. The applicant was transported, in a coma, to a local municipal hospital, where he was placed on life support (see, for relevant facts of the alleged poisoning and investigation, Navalnyy (no. 3) , cited above, § 5-68). 14.     On the same day the applicant’s associate, Mr G., lodged an application with the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation, alleging that the applicant had been intentionally poisoned with an unknown substance, and requesting that criminal proceedings be opened. He stated that the alleged intended assassination had related to the applicant’s political activities. 15 .     On 22 August 2020 the applicant was flown to Germany in a private medical plane for treatment at the Charité Hospital in Berlin. He remained in the Charité Hospital until 23 September 2020. After his discharge he received outpatient treatment in that hospital until 15 January 2021. 16.     On 2 September 2020 the German government announced that the results of the tests carried out on blood and urine samples taken from the applicant had revealed unequivocal proof of the presence of a chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group of substances, which had been prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (ibid., § 15). 17 .     On 6 October 2020 the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons issued a report on technical assistance that it had prepared at the request of Germany. It confirmed that the biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor found in the applicant’s blood and urine samples had structural characteristics similar to those of the toxic chemicals listed in the Annex on Chemicals to the Chemical Weapons Convention (ibid., § 29). 18 .     On 14 December 2020 journalists from Bellingcat (an investigative journalism collective), together with CNN , Der Spiegel and The Insider , published a report on their investigation into the applicant’s alleged poisoning. They revealed that since 2017 he had been under surveillance by Russian security services, and that the agents involved in that surveillance had specialised in toxic chemical substances. The findings of the report were based on flight passenger lists and the geolocation and communications data of the telephones used by several named persons identified as security agents. According to Bellingcat, some of those alleged security agents had followed the applicant during his travels in the days preceding his alleged poisoning on 20   August 2020 (ibid., § 49). 19 .     On the same day the applicant published on YouTube a video entitled “The case is solved. I know everyone who tried to kill me”. The video described how Bellingcat had investigated his alleged poisoning, presented its results and, inter alia , revealed the names and photographs of eight alleged security agents who, according to the applicant, had followed him and had been implicated in the alleged poisoning. 20.     On 17 December 2020 Russian President Vladimir Putin denied the allegations that Russian State security agents had poisoned the applicant. He added that the applicant enjoyed the support of the secret services of the United States of America and that Russian intelligence officers had been right to follow him. 21 .     On 21 December 2020 the applicant published on YouTube a video entitled “I called my killer. He confessed”. The video showed him speaking on the telephone with one of the alleged security agents named in the previous video and in Bellingcat’s investigation. Tricked by the applicant into believing that he was speaking to an aide to the Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, the alleged security agent revealed certain details of the poisoning operation. 22.     On 10 February 2021 the investigator of the Tomsk transport police issued a decision refusing to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged poisoning. That decision was upheld by the Kirovskiy District Court on 29   April 2021 and, at final instance, by the Tomsk Regional Court on 28   June 2021 (ibid., §§   59-69). 23.     On 6 June 2023 the Court delivered its judgment in the case of Navalnyy (no. 3) (cited above), finding a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention. It held that on 20 August 2020   the applicant had found himself involved in an incident that had presented a serious and immediate risk to his life, and that the nature of that incident had triggered the State’s obligation under Article   2 to carry out an effective investigation. The inquiry conducted by the domestic authorities had been ineffective because, in particular, it had failed to explore the allegations of a possible political motive for the attempted murder and of the possible involvement or collusion of State agents in the murder; moreover, the inquiry had not followed up on the reported use of a substance identified as a chemical weapon prohibited by international and domestic law (ibid., §§ 159-61).     Return to Russia, detention and ACTIVATION of the suspended sentence    Events preceding the applicant’s return to Russia and his arrest upon his return 24 .   In accordance with his probation requirements (see paragraph 7 above), on 7   December 2020 the applicant notified the FSIN that he was undergoing outpatient treatment in Germany, giving as his residence his address in Berlin; he stated that he would let the authorities know when he had recovered and of the date of his return to Russia. He attached a certificate issued by the Charité Hospital that confirmed his continuing outpatient treatment there. 25.     On 28 December 2020, while the applicant was still in Berlin, the FSIN issued a public statement that he had failed to report regularly to his local FSIN office, despite the fact that he had been discharged from hospital and that his health was satisfactory (as reported by the media).The FSIN stated that if the above-noted facts were confirmed, his suspended sentence could be activated; his lawyer had accordingly received a summons for him to report to the local FSIN office. 26 .     On 29 December 2020 the FSIN placed the applicant’s name on its list of wanted persons (because it had been unable to establish his whereabouts) and ordered his arrest. On the same day the FSIN lodged an application with the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow for the activation of the applicant’s suspended sentence. 27.     On 13 January 2021 the applicant announced that he would return to Russia on 17 January 2021. 28.     On 14 January 2021 the FSIN issued a public statement that the applicant would be detained upon his arrival in Russia to face proceedings to activate his suspended sentence. 29.     On 17 January 2021, the applicant returned to Russia from Germany and was arrested at the official airport border crossing. The arrest record stated that the applicant had been arrested pursuant to the FSIN’s decision of 29   December 2020 (see paragraph 26 above).    Detention from 18 January until 2 February 2021, pending the proceedings to activate the applicant’s suspended sentence 30 .     On 18 January 2021 the Khimki police lodged an application for the applicant’s detention pending the proceedings to activate his suspended sentence with the Khimki Town Court of the Moscow Region. They claimed that he had failed to report to the local FSIN office on many occasions. 31.     At 10 a.m. on 18 January 2021 the applicant’s lawyers came to the Khimki police station, where the applicant was being held, and asked for a meeting with him. However, they were not allowed to enter the police station until 12.30 p.m., when it was announced to them that a detention hearing (to be held on the Khimki police station’s premises) was about to begin. 32 .     According to the hearing records, at the start of the hearing before the Khimki Town Court, the applicant’s lawyers requested an adjournment to give them time to study the case file and consult with the applicant. The Town Court adjourned the hearing for 50 minutes. When the hearing resumed, the applicant complained that he had been unable to consult his lawyers in private because two police officers with video recorders had been present during his meeting with his lawyers. 33.     Additionally, the applicant’s lawyers asked that the hearing be held at the Khimki Town Court premises and that the journalists and members of the public gathered outside be permitted to enter and attend the proceedings. They argued that many journalists had wished to submit accreditation requests but had been unable to enter the building or otherwise contact a responsible official. The Town Court stated that it had allowed journalists from three television companies to attend the hearing and that it had not received any other written accreditation requests. It further held that members of the public could not be admitted because the room was too small. 34.     The applicant lodged an application seeking the recusal of the judge scheduled to hear his case, arguing that her independence and impartiality were in doubt, given that the hearing was being held at the police station, independent journalists and members of the public had not been admitted and he had been unable to consult his counsel in private. The Town Court rejected the application for the judge’s recusal. The records of the hearing did not mention the reasons for that decision. 35.     On the merits, the applicant argued that the relevant domestic law did not provide a legal basis for detaining a person pending proceedings to activate a suspended sentence. He had had valid reasons for temporarily failing to comply with the conditions of his probation while he had been undergoing medical treatment in Germany. He had informed the FSIN of his whereabouts. His address in Germany was known to the authorities, as confirmed by the fact that the domestic courts had sent him summonses at that address. He submitted copies of those summonses. 36 .     On 18 January 2021 the Khimki Town Court ordered the applicant’s detention until 15   February 2021, pending the proceedings to activate his suspended sentence. The court said that the applicant had evaded serving the sentence imposed on 30   December 2014 (as upheld on appeal on 17   February 2015 and extended on 4 August 2017), and that his name had been placed on the list of wanted persons. He had, in particular, failed to report to the local FSIN office on many occasions both before and after his hospital stay of 20   August-23   September 2020. The medical certificate from the Charité Hospital did not specify the dates of his outpatient treatment. His arrest on 17   January 2021 had been therefore lawful. The court referred to Article 46 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences (see paragraph 107 below) and Articles   397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 103 ‑ 105 below). 37 .     The applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the legal provisions invoked by the Town Court did not provide a legal basis for his detention. The domestic law did not contain any legal provisions permitting detention pending proceedings to activate a suspended sentence. The application of criminal provisions “by analogy” was prohibited by Article 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 100 below). He also submitted that his name had been unlawfully placed on the list of wanted persons, given the fact that he had notified the FSIN that he was receiving medical treatment in Germany (see paragraph 24 above). The Khimki police’s allegations that he had failed to report to the local FSIN office on many occasions had not been supported by any documents. Furthermore, the proceedings before the Town Court had not been adversarial because the court had copied verbatim the Khimki police’s application for detention (see paragraph 30 above) into its decision and had not summarised – let alone addressed – the applicant’s arguments. The court had not been independent because the hearing had taken place at the Khimki police station  the same police entity that had initiated the detention request  without any legal basis for holding the hearing outside the court building. This had also prevented the public and the press from attending the hearing, even though the hearing had not been formally closed to the public. The police had let in only three journalists and several members of the public – all selected by themselves. The applicant had been unable to consult his counsel from the time of his arrest until the start of the detention hearing. Although the court had adjourned the hearing for 50 minutes in order to allow counsel to study the case file and to consult the applicant, that time had been insufficient and discussions between the applicant and his counsel had occurred in the presence of the police, who had audiotaped their conversation. Lastly, the applicant submitted that for him to be placed in detention under the full control of the authorities would put his life and health at risk, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. He referred in this connection to his admission to hospital in July 2019 following his alleged poisoning while he had been in detention; his alleged poisoning in August 2020 with a chemical nerve agent belonging to the Novichok group of substances prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; his lengthy medical treatment in Germany; his public statements about the involvement in his poisoning of named security services agents (see paragraphs 19 and 21 above); and the authorities’ refusal to open a criminal investigation into the poisoning. 38 .     On 28 January 2021 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the detention order, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. It held that the applicant’s detention had been ordered in accordance with Articles 18.1 § 2 and 46 § 4 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences (see paragraphs 106 and 107 below) and Article 397 § 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 103 and 104 below). Although it applied to the Criminal Code, the prohibition on applying legal provisions by analogy did not apply to the Code of Criminal Procedure or to the Code on the Execution of Sentences. A different interpretation of the domestic law would have rendered impossible the execution of the applicant’s criminal sentence. Given that the applicant’s name had been placed on the list of wanted persons, his detention had been necessary in order to ensure his participation (in accordance with Article 399 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, see paragraph 105 below) in the hearing of the FSIN’s application for his suspended sentence to be activated. The only way to ensure the participation of a convicted person who had evaded supervision was to place him in detention for the period necessary for a decision to be reached on the competent authorities’ application for the activation of the suspended sentence. The FSIN’s detention request had been reasoned and supported by documents. However, the information submitted by the FSIN to the court (regarding the applicant’s alleged failure on many occasions to report to the local FSIN office) was outside the scope of the detention hearing; the accuracy of that information would be assessed during the hearing on the merits of the FSIN’s request. The procedural requirements had been complied with. The relevant domestic law did not prohibit the conduct of hearings outside court buildings. The police had requested that the hearing be held on their premises, in accordance with Presidential Decree no.   239 of 2 April 2020 on health and safety measures related to the COVID ‑ 19 epidemic (see paragraph 111 below). The applicant had been given the opportunity to consult his counsel in private before the commencement of the hearing. The court also held that the applicant’s allegations regarding a risk to his life could not be taken into account. No reasons were given for this conclusion.    Detention from 2 February 2021 onwards, following the decision to activate the suspended sentence 39 .     On 2 February 2021 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow activated the applicant’s suspended sentence imposed by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court’s judgment of 30   December 2014 (see paragraph 6 above) and ordered his imprisonment for three and a half years. It found that it had been established that the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with probation conditions. He had failed to report to the local FSIN office on many occasions, both before and after his hospital stay from 20   August until 23   September 2020. In particular, he had failed to submit documents confirming that he had been undergoing outpatient treatment in Germany after his discharge from hospital on 23   September 2020. The FSIN had sent summonses and had visited addresses known to them but had been unable to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. Given that his whereabouts had remained unknown to the FSIN for more than 30 days, it had been declared (in accordance with Article 190 § 6 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences – see paragraph 110 below) that he was evading supervision. Although the probation term had expired on 31 December 2020, the request for the suspended sentence to be activated had been submitted before that date. The court also discounted the applicant’s reliance on the Court’s finding that his conviction had violated Articles   6 and 7 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above), on the basis that the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia had found no grounds to amend or reverse the conviction following the Court’s judgment (see paragraph 10 above). 40 .     The applicant lodged an appeal, citing Articles 5, 6 and 18 of the Convention. He relied on the Court’s finding that his conviction had violated Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above). He further argued that he had fully complied with the conditions of his probation. He had notified the FSIN of his hospital stay and subsequent outpatient treatment in Germany, had submitted medical certificates and had indicated his address in Berlin. As regards the period before his poisoning, he had regularly reported to his local FSIN office (although, he conceded, not always on the scheduled days). The probation term had expired on 31 December 2020; after that date it had no longer been possible to activate the suspended sentence. Furthermore, the proceedings had been unfair because the District Court had not addressed his arguments and because he had not been allowed to consult with his counsel privately after his arrest. Lastly, the applicant argued that his detention under the full control of the authorities would put his life and health in risk. He relied in this connection on the same arguments as those cited in his appeal submissions against the detention order (see paragraph 37 above). The applicant also requested that he be immediately released, in accordance with the interim measure indicated by the Court (see paragraph 46 below). 41 .     On 20 February 2021 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 2 February 2021, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. The District Court had established that the applicant had failed to comply with the probation conditions over a prolonged period of time, including by repeatedly failing to report to his local FSIN office on scheduled dates. Despite receiving multiple warnings regarding the potential activation of his suspended sentence, he had changed his place of residence without properly notifying the authorities, had evaded supervision, and had been ultimately declared a wanted person. In particular, he had on several occasions failed to comply with the required reporting schedule between January and March 2020 and then again in July 2020. Furthermore, he had not informed the FSIN of his discharge from the hospital on 23 September 2020, his outpatient treatment in Germany, or his new address there until 23   November 2020 — more than 30 days after his discharge. Nor had he submitted any documents confirming his address in Berlin. Given that the FSIN had been unable to establish the applicant’s whereabouts, his name had been placed on the list of wanted persons. The City Court then restated the reasoning of the District Court as regards the expiration of the probation term and the Court’s judgment of 17 October 2017 (see paragraph 39 above). The proceedings had met the statutory procedural requirements. The applicant had been able to consult his counsel in private. The court deemed that the applicant’s allegations that the activation of his prison sentence was politically motivated and associated with a risk to life and health were unsubstantiated. Lastly, as regards the interim measures indicated by the Court (see paragraph 46 below), it held that the Court could not give instructions to the domestic courts or otherwise interfere with the execution of domestic criminal sentences. Furthermore, the interim measures had been indicated to the Russian Government rather than to the Russian courts and were therefore irrelevant to the case under examination. The City Court concluded that the applicant’s rights under the Convention had not been violated by the contested decision and that all substantive and procedural requirements of the domestic law had been complied with.    Application of Rule 39 by the Court 42 .     On 20 January 2021 the applicant lodged a request with the Court for an interim measure to be indicated to the Russian Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court. He asked that the Court order his immediate release. He argued that the detention posed an immediate threat to his life in view of the alleged involvement of State agents in a previous and recent near-fatal attack (using chemical weapons) on him. 43.     On 21 January 2021 the Court’s duty judge adjourned the examination of the above-mentioned Rule 39 request and asked the Government to answer the following questions: “(i)     In view of the arguable allegation of a near-lethal attack on the applicant in August 2020 with the use of chemical nerve agent, and the fact that the perpetrators had not been established by the Russian authorities, does the risk to the applicant’s life persist to date? (ii)     If so, what measures are being taken by the Russian authorities to safeguard his life and well-being, in particular while he is in custody (see Gongadze v. Ukraine , no.   34056/02, §§ 167-171, ECHR 2005 ‑ XI)? (iii)     Furthermore, are the conditions of detention and the treatment of the applicant subject to regular independent monitoring in line with the European standards (see the Recommendation Rec(2006)2-rev of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules, §   93)?” 44 .     On 26 January 2021 the Government responded by saying that the applicant was being detained in a Moscow detention facility in “properly guarded” premises, in a cell under video surveillance. He was being held in solitary confinement for 14 days as a quarantine measure. He had a refrigerator, a teapot, cold and hot water taps and a television set. They submitted that after he had been detained the applicant had been visited by his lawyers and members of a public monitoring commission on several occasions. He had been able to make telephone calls and to receive both electronic correspondence (through the detention facility’s electronic messaging system) and hard-copy correspondence. He had been examined by doctors. He had made no complaints to the detention facility’s authorities regarding the conditions of his detention or his health and safety. 45.     On 3 February 2021 the applicant submitted his comments. He pointed out that the conditions of his detention, as described by the Government, were not sufficient to guarantee his safety. As to the video surveillance, he argued that the existence of such surveillance had not in the past prevented the occurrence of other homicide and suicide attempts against other persons held in the same detention facility. Furthermore, the presence of video-surveillance facilities did not constitute a sufficient safeguard against a possible further attack on his life similar to the above-mentioned attack that had occurred in August 2020, which had involved the use of chemical weapons under exclusive State control and which, he believed, had been perpetrated by State agents. He accused the authorities of acting in bad faith in their failure on multiple occasions to respect his human rights; some of those instances had already been examined by the Court. He maintained that in detention his life and limb were under imminent threat given the fact that he remained under the control of the authorities (who, he believed, had persecuted him and his family members in order to silence his anti-corruption campaign and to put an end to his opposition activities). 46 .     On 16 February 2021 the Court allowed the applicant’s request for an interim measure and indicated to the Government that they should release him immediately. The Court provided the following reasons for its decision: “In taking that decision the Chamber had regard to the nature and extent of risk to the applicant’s life, demonstrated prima facie for the purposes of applying the interim measure, and seen in the light of the overall circumstances of the applicant’s current detention. This measure has been granted without prejudice to the Court’s decision on the merits of the present case and the competence of the Committee of Ministers.” The Committee of Ministers was notified of that decision, in accordance with Rule 39 § 2 of the Rules of Court. The decision was notified to the parties on 17 February 2021. 47 .     On 20 February 2021 the Russian Government requested that the Court reverse its decision of 17 February 2021, arguing that the applicant’s allegations were not supported by evidence and that in taking that decision the Court had violated the principle of subsidiarity and had acted ultra vires .      Conditions of THE APPLICANT’S detention and communication with counsel    SIZO-1 and SIZO-3 (from 18 January until 11 March 2021) 48.     On 18 January 2021 the applicant was placed in the SIZO no. 1 Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention facility in Moscow (“SIZO-1”). 49 .     On 18 February 2021 the applicant was registered as a person at risk of escaping. The decision noted that on 29 January 2021 the applicant had verbally requested a meeting with the governor of SIZO-1 from a guard. When asked to state the reason for the meeting, he had responded that he wished to “discuss his plans to flee”. On the same day, during a search of his cell, he had asked a guard whether they had found his “escape plan”. When the guard had enquired whether he was planning to escape, he had replied: “Sure. I suppose no one has ever escaped from SIZO-1, I will be the first”. He had moreover earlier publicly stated his intention to escape. The registration of the applicant as a person at risk of escaping was valid for three months. 50.     According to the applicant, meeting rooms in SIZO-1 were equipped with glass partitions that had no openings. Counsel could not pass documents to the applicant, who had to read them through the glass. He also had to talk to his counsel through an interphone. 51.     The Government acknowledged that COVID-19 related restrictions had been in force until 16 March 2021; those restrictions included the installation of glass partitions for use during family and legal visits. 52 .     On 25 February 2021 the applicant was transferred from SIZO-1 to an undisclosed detention facility. Neither his family nor his lawyers had any information about his whereabouts, or contact with him, until 3 March 2021. On the latter date the lawyers located him at the SIZO no. 3 pre-trial detention facility in the Vladimir Region (“SIZO-3”). They had to wait for several hours before meeting him. 53.     According to the applicant, the conditions of detention in SIZO-3 were poor: there was no access to drinking water and the food was extremely meagre; he could not buy food from the prison shop for eight days as his funds had not been transferred from his account at SIZO-1 to his account at SIZO-3. Lawyers were allowed to visit him daily. The meeting rooms in SIZO-3 were equipped with glass partitions and video cameras. 54.     The Government acknowledged that there were video cameras in the meeting rooms in SIZO-3.    IK-2 (from 11 March until 18 April 2021) 55 .     On 11 March 2021 the applicant was transferred from SIZO-3 to an undisclosed detention facility. Neither his family nor his lawyers had any information on his whereabouts or contact with him until 15 March 2021. On the latter date the lawyers located him at correctional colony IK-2 in the Vladimir Region ( ФКУ ИК-2 УФСИН России по Владимирской области – hereinafter “IK-2”). On the same day they met the applicant at the facility. They had to talk with each other over the interphone through a glass partition. 56 .     On the day of his arrival at IK-2 (11 March 2021) the applicant was registered (with reference to the decision of 18 February 2021 – see paragraph 49 above) as a person at risk of escaping. 57 .     According to the applicant, in IK-2 he was initially put in a “quarantine cell”. His head was shaved and he was ordered to wear prison uniform. He submitted to the Court press articles containing his photograph with a shaved head that had been published on his social networking accoun