EHRM, 23-03-2016, nr. 47152/06

According to the applicant, he had shared his bedroom in the centre with seven other inmates. The lights were kept on all night.

During the day inmates were forbidden to lie on their beds or to enter the bedroom. They had to spend the whole day in a large empty room which had no furniture or sports equipment. On a few occasions they were given a chess set and other board games. They were allowed to go out into the yard only twice during the applicant's thirty-day stay in the centre.

Inmates had classes twice a week for about three hours. They had mathematics and Russian grammar classes only. They were not taught any other courses from the officially approved secondary school curriculum. About twenty children of different ages and school levels were taught together in one class.

The supervisors applied collective punishment to the inmates. If one of them committed a breach of the centre's strict regime, all inmates were forced to stand in line against the wall without moving, talking or being allowed to sit down. Given that many inmates were psychologically unstable and unruly, because of their socially disadvantaged background, such punishment was applied every day and often lasted for hours.

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.

Although the applicant's grandfather had informed the staff of the centre about the applicant's enuresis and his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the applicant did not receive any treatment.

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.

The centre had a dining room where meals were served five times a day. There was also a games room and a sports room. Audio and video equipment, educational games and fictional works were available.

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 about his enuresis.

The applicant's personal file, containing, in particular, the information about his medical condition on admission, the preventive work carried out and the punishment applied to him, 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).

According to the Government, the applicant's other medical records and logbooks at the temporary detention centre had been destroyed as soon as they had become unnecessary, 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 entered into force on 12 May 2006 (which provided that medical records were to be stored for three years).

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 where the inmates were gathered, which ensured continuity of the educational process. Teachers from the neighbouring school regularly came to the centre so that the inmates could follow the secondary-school curriculum. After their release from the centre, they received an education progress record. She stated that she did not remember the applicant but asserted that she had not received any requests or complaints from him or from any other inmate.

The Government also submitted a copy of an agreement of 1 September 2004 between the detention centre and secondary school no. 15 according to which the school undertook to organise secondary-school courses in the centre in accordance with a curriculum developed by the centre. A copy of an undated two-week curriculum was produced by the Government. It included four classes per day on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.

The applicant stressed that at the time of being placed in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders he was suffering from neurosis, ADHD, psychopathic conduct and enuresis. While he acknowledged that these conditions did not require immediate medical aid at the time of being detained, he emphasised that the pressure exerted on him throughout the detention at the police station and the questioning there, together with the thirty days at the temporary detention centre, had resulted in a sharp aggravation of all of his conditions and an immediate need for medical treatment. This had been proved by the medical certificates submitted by him during the proceedings before the Chamber, which confirmed that he had been forcibly hospitalised in a psychiatric hospital immediately upon release from the temporary detention centre. He argued that there were no other possible causes for the aggravation of his conditions.

In his view, the Russian authorities had failed to take timely measures to avoid the aggravation of his illnesses. In particular, he alleged that, when requesting to place him in the temporary detention centre, the Head of the Sovetskiy District Police Department was required to submit to the District Court a decision by the relevant healthcare facility on the presence or absence of contra-indications of a medical nature, including a psychiatric examination, placing him in the temporary detention centre. However, no such decision had been submitted either to the court or the temporary detention centre.

The applicant further maintained his submissions before the Chamber, claiming that both he and his grandfather had informed the teachers and employees of the temporary detention centre about his illnesses and asked for unrestricted access to the bathroom. However, this had been ignored and he had suffered badly, both psychologically and physically, owing to his enuresis.

Having regard to all of the circumstances of his case, the applicant maintained that the conditions in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, at the time of his stay there, had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

The Government maintained that the applicant's complaints under Article 3 did not disclose any violation of that provision.

They reiterated that the applicant's personal file from the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, which might have included a medical record describing the applicant's health on admission, had been destroyed in accordance with the instructions in force at the time (see paragraph 73 above). Moreover, other medical records and logbooks from the temporary detention centre for the period of the applicant's stay had been destroyed as soon as they had become ‘unnecessary’, as no time-limits for keeping such documents existed at the material time. Order No. 340 of 12 May 2006, referred to in paragraph 34 of the Chamber judgment, had entered into force only after those documents had been destroyed.

However, the Government noted that the applicant's ‘accounting and statistical record’ from his stay at the temporary detention centre in September 2004 and in February 2005 had been retained since its storage period was unlimited in accordance with Order No. 215 of 2 April 2004 (see paragraph 74 above). According to the Government, the Court had mistakenly called these records ‘medical records’ in paragraphs 32 and 90 of the Chamber judgment and had therefore reached a wrong conclusion in paragraph 90.

They further stated that since they had only been given notice of the present case on 1 October 2010, more than five and half years after the events in question and following the destruction of most of the relevant records, they had to rely on the report by the head of the temporary detention centre, dated 28 December 2010, and the explanation of a supervisor at the same centre, dated 23 December 2010 (see paragraph 41 above). From these documents it appeared that all children kept at the temporary detention centre, including the applicant, had been examined daily by the medical staff. This was further supported by the ‘daily routine’ approved on 17 January 2013 and submitted to the Court. Moreover, children could ask for medical assistance at any time; there were properly equipped medical rooms; access to toilets was not restricted; and special night-time arrangements were made for children suffering from enuresis. No complaints had been made by the applicant concerning any of these matters during his stay at the temporary detention centre. In this respect, the Government pointed out that minors kept in the temporary detention centre could receive unrestricted visits and telephone calls from their relatives, provided that they did not interfere with the activities foreseen in the daily schedule. The applicant's grandfather had never claimed to have been prevented from visiting the applicant and did not appear to have made any written or oral complaints during such visits.

Lastly, the Government submitted that, according to the staff schedule of the temporary detention centre in force from 18 June 2003 to 3 October 2005, a psychiatrist, a paediatrician, a doctor's assistant and a nurse were present at the centre. An information note further stated that the quality of medical care and the living conditions at the temporary detention centre had not been subject to any departmental or other inspection during 2004 or 2005. In view of all of the above, and since the applicant had not submitted any documents to substantiate his claims, the Government argued that there was no indication that the temporary detention centre was not suitable to accommodate, for a maximum period of 30 days, a child suffering from enuresis and a behavioural disorder.

With regard to the applicant's health, the Government pointed out that his enuresis was mentioned neither in any medical documents submitted by the applicant (issued after 2003) nor in the applicant's ‘accounting and statistical record’ from the temporary detention centre. Moreover, the degree of manifestation of this illness was not mentioned in any of the available documents. Turning to the applicant's behavioural disorder, the Government noted that, according to the extract from the medical history no. 3624 (submitted by the applicant to the Court in October 2007), the applicant had suffered from a social behavioural disorder at the material time which seemed to be a result of external factors rather than of his other diseases. In their view, the applicant had failed to submit any medical certificate to substantiate the allegation that this disorder prevented his placement in the temporary detention centre. He had also failed to produce a report by a medical expert confirming that his stay at the temporary detention centre had caused his health to deteriorate.

Consequently, the Government considered that the applicant's complaints did not disclose a violation of Article 3.

The Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) stressed that children with mental disabilities faced a ‘double disadvantage’ — both as children and as individuals with mental disabilities. These children were particularly vulnerable to violations of their rights and had additional needs which had to be protected through stringent and effective safeguards. The MDAC referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the CRPD’) and in particular its main object to ensure equality and non-discrimination in all domains (Article 5(2)). It further referred to the CRC, underlining that the best interests of the child should always be a primary consideration and that State Parties undertook to ensure the child such protection and care as was necessary for his or her well-being (Article 3 — see paragraph 81 above). Moreover, Article 23 of the CRC specifically related to children with disabilities and the MDAC observed that the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No. 9 (2006), set out further guidance as to the treatment of children with disabilities in conflict with the law. Thus, the Committee stated that ‘children with disabilities in conflict with the law should not be placed in a regular juvenile detention centre by way of pre-trial detention nor by way of a punishment’ (see paragraph 83 above). The MDAC stressed that the Court had held that States had an obligation to take particular measures to provide effective protection of vulnerable persons from ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (they referred to Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V).

The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society, prohibiting in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see, among other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 201, ECHR 2012). However, to come within the scope of the interdiction contained in Article 3 the treatment inflicted on or endured by the victim must reach a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is a relative one, depending on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see M.S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24527/08, § 38, 3 May 2012, and Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII).

Article 3 further imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical care (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII). Thus, the Court has held on many occasions that lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, for example, M.S. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 44 to 46; Wenerski v. Poland, no. 44369/02, §§ 56 to 65, 20 January 2009; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 210 to 213 and 231 to 237, 13 July 2006).

In this connection, the ‘adequacy’ of medical assistance remains the most difficult element to determine. The Court reiterates that the mere fact that a detainee is seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance was adequate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 116, 29 November 2007). The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his or her treatment while in detention (see Khudobin v. Russia, cited above, § 83), that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 115), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Popov, cited above, § 211; Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; and Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, § 93, 27 November 2014). The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116). Furthermore, medical treatment provided within prison facilities must be appropriate, that is, at a level comparable to that which the State authorities have committed themselves to provide to the population as a whole. Nevertheless, this does not mean that every detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities (see Cara-Damiani v. Italy, no. 2447/05, § 66, 7 February 2012).

On the whole, the Court reserves sufficient flexibility in defining the required standard of health care, deciding it on a case-by-case basis. That standard should be ‘compatible with the human dignity’ of a detainee, but should also take into account ‘the practical demands of imprisonment’ (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008). When dealing with children, the Court considers that, in line with established international law, the health of juveniles deprived of their liberty shall be safeguarded according to recognised medical standards applicable to juveniles in the wider community (see, for example, paragraphs 79, 81 and 87 above — the 2008 European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures, Rules 57, 62.2, 62.5, 69.2, and 73(d); the CRC, Article 3, paragraph 3; and the Havana Rules, Rules 49–53). The authorities should always be guided by the child's best interests and the child should be guaranteed proper care and protection. Moreover, if the authorities are considering depriving a child of his or her liberty, a medical assessment should be made of the child's state of health to determine whether or not he or she can be placed in a juvenile detention centre.

The Court further stresses that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. However, it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard. Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States' responsibility under the Convention. In the proceedings before the Court, there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre-determined formulae for its assessment. It adopts conclusions that are, in its view, supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties' submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake. The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII, with further references; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV; Amirov, cited above, § 80; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012).

In this connection it should be noted that the Court has held that Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation). According to the Court's case-law under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries, damage and death occurring during that detention. The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Amirov, cited above, § 92). In the absence of such an explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see, for instance, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002, and Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).

The Court notes from the outset that both the applicant's young age and his state of health are circumstances of relevance in assessing whether the minimum level of severity has been attained (see paragraph 135 above) and it will have particular regard to the principles set out in paragraph 138 above.

In the present case, the Court notes that the Government have submitted numerous documents in support of their submissions before the Grand Chamber to show that the conditions at the temporary detention centre were good and that medical treatment was provided. However, the great majority of these documents date from 2008 to 2014, several years after the applicant's stay at the temporary detention centre and, consequently, do not shed light on the conditions in the centre during his placement there. Moreover, as concerns the report by the head of the temporary detention centre, dated 28 December 2010, and the explanation of a supervisor at the centre, dated 23 December 2010, the Court finds it unlikely that they would remember whether or not one child, staying at the temporary detention centre for thirty days almost six years earlier, had complained about the conditions or access to the toilets. It has also on previous occasions found that reports or certificates like those submitted by the Russian Government were of little evidentiary value as they lacked references to original documentation held by the relevant prison or detention centre (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 124, with further references).

Thus, while the Court does not question the submission that some of the documents from the temporary detention centre relating to the applicant may have been destroyed in accordance with the relevant rules in force at that time, this does not absolve the Government from the obligation to support their factual submissions with appropriate evidence (ibid., § 125).

The parties have submitted a number of relevant documents which allow the Court to examine the applicant's complaints in depth. In particular, it finds it established through the medical certificates submitted by the applicant that he was examined by a neurologist and a psychiatrist on 27 December 2004 and 19 January 2005, that is, only slightly over a month before being placed in the temporary detention centre. At that time, medication was prescribed for him as well as regular supervision by a neurologist and a psychiatrist and regular psychological counselling for his ADHD. It has further been established through medical records that the applicant was hospitalised the day after his release from the temporary detention centre and treated for neurosis and ADHD. He remained in hospital at least until 12 April 2005, thus for approximately three weeks.

Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant's grandfather submitted medical certificates at the detention hearing on 21 February 2005 to show that the applicant suffered from ADHD, thereby ensuring that the authorities were aware of his condition. In this connection the Court observes that an officer from the Juveniles Inspectorate was present at the hearing on 21 February 2005 and that, in accordance with section 31.2 of the Minors Act, a representative of the temporary detention centre was also required to be present. Since the applicant's grandfather drew attention to the applicant's medical condition during the hearing, the relevant authorities responsible for the applicant's placement at the temporary detention centre were made aware of his condition.

Thus, even if the applicant's personal file from the temporary detention centre has been destroyed, the Court considers that there is sufficient evidence to show that the authorities were aware of the applicant's medical condition upon his admission to the temporary detention centre and that he was in need of treatment. Moreover, the fact that he was hospitalised the day after his release, and kept in the psychiatric hospital for almost three weeks, provides an indication that he was not given the necessary treatment for his condition at the temporary detention centre. The applicant has thereby provided the Court with a prima facie case of lack of adequate medical treatment. Having regard to the considerations set out above (see paragraphs 142-43 above) concerning the documents submitted by the Government and the lack of any other convincing evidence, the Court finds that the Government have failed to show that the applicant received the medical care required by his condition during his stay at the temporary detention where he was kept for thirty days without the right to leave and entirely under the control and responsibility of the staff at the centre. In these circumstances, the authorities were under an obligation to safeguard the applicant's dignity and well-being, and are responsible under the Convention for the treatment he experienced (see M.S. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 44).

As concerns the applicant's enuresis, the Court notes that it is not mentioned in the medical certificates of 27 December 2004 and 19 January 2005 and that it was not the reason for his hospitalisation following his detention. Thus, in the Court's view, the applicant has not submitted sufficient prima facie evidence to show whether and, if so, to what extent he suffered from enuresis on admission to the temporary detention centre and whether the personnel at the centre were, or should have been, aware of it. Since most of the medical certificates and files from the temporary detention centre concerning the applicant have been destroyed, it appears difficult to obtain any clarification on this point. On the other hand, the Court has already found it established that the applicant suffered from ADHD.

The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 3 on account of the lack of necessary medical treatment at the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders, having regard to his young age and particularly vulnerable situation, suffering as he was from ADHD.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

In view of this finding of a violation of Article 3, and like the Chamber in its judgment, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the remainder of the applicant's complaints under this provision.

The applicant agreed with the reasoning in the Chamber judgment in relation to Article 5 § 1. He had been placed in the temporary detention centre for thirty days for the ‘correction of conduct’, which did not involve educational supervision within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (d). In his view, the temporary detention centre was in no sense an institution intended for educational supervision and, according to section 22 of the Minors Act, its tasks did not include carrying out educational work with the minor. In fact, according to domestic legislation, temporary detention centres were not included in the system of educational institutions. The applicant stressed, further, that special closed institutions existed that did have the specific task of bringing up and educating children and young persons of deviant behaviour.

Moreover, section 22(4)(2) of the Minors Act contained a list of situations in which a minor could be placed in a temporary detention centre (see paragraph 66 above) and the applicant's situation did not fall under any of these. He underlined that his identity had been known as had his place of residence and that his guilt in respect of the allegation of extortion had never been established by a court verdict. Furthermore, the applicant noted that, under section 22(6) of the Minors Act, a minor should only be kept in a temporary detention centre for the minimum time necessary for putting his or her affairs in order, and no more than thirty days. This implied that the purpose of the temporary detention centre was not educational supervision, but solely the detention of minors until such time as they could be handed over to their guardian or placed in a special educational institution. In any event, the Government had not submitted any relevant documents confirming that the applicant had received any individual precautionary instructions or had any school lessons while detained in the centre.

Lastly, the applicant submitted that his placement in the temporary detention centre did not serve any of the purposes listed in Article 5 § 1 (a), (b), or (c) either.

He concluded that his detention had been unlawful as it fell outside the scope of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

The Government maintained that the applicant's detention in the temporary detention centre had been in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention since his placement had been ordered precisely for the purposes of ‘educational supervision’. They noted that the national courts had authorised the applicant's placement in the temporary detention centre to prevent him from committing further offences — by correcting his behaviour through individual preventive work — in accordance with section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act. They observed that other preventive measures taken earlier had not resulted in the improvement of the applicant's behaviour and that his family had been unable to ensure his proper supervision. In relation to this, the Government stressed the applicant's troubled background with alcoholic parents, placements in orphanages, anti-social and aggressive behaviour and commission of offences which had led to his being placed under the preventive supervision of the Juveniles Inspectorate between 2002 and 2005. They noted that the case file concerning the preventive supervision of the applicant had been destroyed in 2011.

Moreover, the Government submitted that individual preventive work, foreseen by the Minors Act, included an element of ‘educational supervision’ and its implementation at the temporary detention centre had been expressly required in the applicant's situation. While the applicant's personal file from the centre had been destroyed in accordance with the domestic rules, the Government relied on other documents which indirectly confirmed that individual preventive work had been carried out with the applicant during his stay, such as an undated personality profile (xаpакTеpиcTика) of the applicant issued by the temporary detention centre at the request of his representative (submitted to the Court by the applicant's grandfather in 2007). They further relied on a number of documents to demonstrate that temporary detention centres in general were designed to provide ‘educational supervision’ and secondary school education, such as the staff schedule approved on 18 June 2003, the contracts of 1 September 2004 and 1 September 2005 between the temporary detention centre and school no. 15 of Novosibirsk on the provision of education to minors placed at the centre, and the licence issued to that school for the period from 4 September 2002 until 19 June 2007 to work with the educational and consultation centre of the temporary detention centre.

The Government also claimed that the regime in closed educational institutions, as foreseen by section 15(4) of the Minors Act, was similar to the regime in temporary detention centres, as specified in section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act. Although the emphasis was placed differently in the wording of the two provisions, the essence, methods and aims of the work conducted with the minors were the same in both places. The difference was merely in the duration of the stay. The main objects of the closed educational institutions, as specified in section 15 of the Minors Act, were fully applicable to temporary detention centres.

The MDAC pointed out that pursuant to Article 37(b) of the CRC the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child must be in conformity with the law and used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible time (see paragraph 82 above). It further observed that the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No. 9 (2006), stated that ‘children with disabilities in conflict with the law should not be placed in a regular juvenile detention centre by way of pre-trial detention nor by way of a punishment. Deprivation of liberty should only be applied if necessary with a view to providing the child with adequate treatment … and the child should be placed in an institution that has specially trained staff’ (see paragraph 83 above). Moreover, Rule 28 of the Havana Rules (see paragraph 87 above) provided that the detention of juveniles should only take place under conditions that took full account of their particular needs, status and special requirements according to their age, personality, sex and type of offence, as well as mental and physical health, and which ensured their protection from harmful influences and risk situations.

First, in their submissions before the Grand Chamber, the Government considered that the court hearing of 21 February 2005 ordering the applicant's detention in the temporary detention centre should be examined for compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, instead of Article 6, since it concerned the imposition of a measure for the purposes foreseen by Article 5 § 1 (d). In this connection they noted that the Chamber had already examined another court hearing, namely that of 11 April 2005 relating to the applicant's appeal against his placement in the temporary detention centre, for compliance with Article 5 § 4. Moreover, the Court had previously relied on this provision in relation to similar measures (Ichin and others v. Ukraine (nos. 28189/04 and 28192/04, §§ 41 and 43, 21 December 2010, and A. and Others v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 81 and 107).

In any event, the Government maintained their stance that Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings in the present case.

They contended that, as far as the pre-investigation inquiry was concerned, it had only involved one informal act with the participation of the applicant — the questioning — which should not be confused with a formal interview. They further reiterated that the pre-investigation inquiry concerned only the establishment of the facts and could not lead to the imposition of any punishment and thus did not involve the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The inquiry could only lead to a decision whether or not to institute criminal proceedings. Since the applicant was under the age of criminal responsibility the institution of criminal proceedings was excluded. Thus, as in the situation of a mentally ill defendant, the possibility of conviction was completely excluded. Referring to Kerr v. the United Kingdom ([dec.], no. 63356/00, 23 September 2003) and Antoine v. the United Kingdom ([dec.], no. 62960/00, 13 May 2003), the Government observed that, for exactly these reasons, the Court had found that Article 6 was not applicable to criminal proceedings in respect of mentally ill defendants.

Regarding the proceedings leading to the applicant's placement in the temporary detention centre, the Government argued that Article 6, under its criminal head, was not applicable. They referred to sections 22(2)(4) and 31.1(2) of the Minors Act and to the domestic court rulings of 21 February 2005 and 29 May 2006. In their view, these sources confirmed that the purpose of the applicant's placement in the temporary detention centre had been to prevent him from committing further offences, by correcting his behaviour, and not to punish him for the latest offence he had committed. Thus, the domestic courts had examined not only the circumstances of the latest offence, but the entire record of the applicant's anti-social and delinquent behaviour, as well as his living conditions and family situation, and had concluded that he lacked the necessary supervision and that the preventive measures previously put in place had been inadequate. Consequently, the domestic court could not, and had not, established the applicant's guilt in respect of a crime but had merely assessed the sufficiency of the evidence confirming his commission of an act prohibited by the Criminal Code. This could not amount to a ‘determination of a criminal charge’ within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the court hearing of 21 February 2005 had been conducted in accordance with the procedure foreseen by the Minors Act, not by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation had expressly stated that this procedure under the Minors Act constituted a type of civil proceedings (finding of 14 May 2013, no. 690-O).

The applicant contested the applicability of Article 5 § 4 and maintained that the Chamber's approach had been the correct one and that the proceedings fell within the scope of Article 6 and should be considered in terms of compliance with that provision. He contended that his placement in the temporary detention centre had not been aimed at educational supervision but to punish him for the crime he had allegedly committed. In his view, the authorities had used the placement as a measure of criminal prosecution since they were prevented from instituting criminal proceedings against him on account of his age.

The Court notes that, in its judgment, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the proceedings against the applicant constituted criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 149 of the Chamber judgment). It held as follows:

The Court does not see any reason to depart from the Chamber's findings, which are detailed and well-reasoned. Like the Chamber, it stresses the need to look beyond appearances and the language used and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see the Chamber judgment, paragraph 146, cited above). When doing so in the applicant's case, the Court considers that his placement for thirty days in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders had clear elements of both deterrence and punishment (see the Chamber judgment, paragraph 147, cited above).

Having regard to the above, the Court does not agree with the Government's contention that the complaints should be considered under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. In its view, since the proceedings taken against the applicant concerned the determination of a criminal charge, the applicant's complaints should be seen in the context of the more far-reaching procedural guarantees enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention rather than Article 5 § 4. The Court would add that it does not agree with the Government's submission that the applicant's situation should be treated in the same way as that of a mentally ill defendant. In cases of mentally ill defendants the proceedings can lead to their being placed in closed institutions for treatment and to prevent them from committing further criminal acts. There are no punitive or deterrent elements involved, unlike in the applicant's case.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the proceedings against the applicant constituted criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and that this provision is therefore applicable in the present case.

With regard to the applicant's complaint that he had been questioned by the police in the absence of his guardian, a defence lawyer or a teacher, the Chamber noted that there was no evidence to support the Government's claim that the applicant's grandfather, his guardian, or anyone else had been present during the questioning. Moreover, having regard to his young age, it considered the circumstances surrounding the questioning to have been psychologically coercive. The Chamber further observed that the applicant's confession to the police had been used against him in the ensuing proceedings. Thus, the absence of a lawyer while in police custody had irremediably affected his defence rights and undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c).

Next, the Chamber noted that the applicant had had no opportunity to cross-examine S. and his mother although their witness statements were the only evidence against him and had therefore been decisive. Moreover, no efforts had been made by the authorities to secure the appearance of S. or his mother in court, nor had they made a reasonable effort to compensate for this. It therefore found that the applicant's right to question and challenge witnesses had been restricted to an extent incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).

Lastly, the Chamber observed that the above-mentioned restrictions on the applicant's defence rights had been due to the special legal regime applicable to his situation because he had not reached the statutory age of criminal responsibility. The Minors Act, applicable to the proceedings against the applicant, provided for significantly restricted procedural guarantees. In view of the above considerations, the proceedings against the applicant had not been fair and there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

The applicant claimed 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as awarded to him by the Chamber in its judgment, although he submitted that it would not fully cover all costs for the recovery of his physical and mental health.

The Government contested that sum and considered that if the Court were to find a violation of the Convention, the Court's judgment in this respect should in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

The Chamber, making an assessment on an equitable basis, awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

The Court observes that it has found the same combination of violations as the Chamber in the present case. Moreover, the applicant has requested the same sum as granted to him by the Chamber in its judgment. The Court finds this to be an equitable amount and thus awards the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

The applicant also claimed RUB 24,979 (approximately EUR 417) for legal fees (RUB 20,000), translation costs (RUB 4,620) and postal expenses (RUB 359) incurred before the Grand Chamber, in addition to the sum granted by the Chamber in its judgment.

The Government contested both the sum awarded by the Chamber and the applicant's additional claims before the Grand Chamber. They considered that the available payment receipts submitted to the Court could not be viewed as valid documentary evidence since they bore stamps of a bar association but were signed by the representative himself. Moreover, no legal assistance contract between the applicant, or his grandfather, and the representative had been submitted to the Court. The random payment receipts from a translation centre were also insufficient to confirm translation expenses. The Government further pointed out that the representative was not mentioned in any of the domestic courts' decisions and that his involvement in the proceedings before the Court had been limited, most of the work having been done by the applicant's grandfather.

The Chamber awarded the applicant EUR 1,493 for legal fees and translation expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.

According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the Court finds no reason to question the sum granted by the Chamber to the applicant for his costs and expenses. It further finds that the invoices and payment receipts submitted by the applicant to the Court prove that he has paid his representative RUB 20,000 for his legal services in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber. It also accepts in full the invoices and payment receipts relating to costs for translations and postal services.

In the light of the above, the Court grants the applicant the full amount claimed, that is, EUR 1,493, for the proceedings before the Chamber and EUR 417 for the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, namely, a total amount of EUR 1,910, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.