CASE OF YAIKOV v. RUSSIA

1. The case originated in an application (no. 39317/05) 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 Vyacheslav Viktorovich Yaikov (“the applicant”), on 17 October 2005.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms T. Klimova, a lawyer practising in Chelyabinsk. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his placement in a psychiatric hospital at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings against him was unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention and that the criminal proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
4. On 12 November 2009 the application was communicated to the Government.
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Miass, Chelyabinsk Region.
6. The applicant is a mentally disabled person. On 19 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on a suspicion of having committed a murder. On the same day the applicant ’ s mother informed the investigator that the applicant suffered from a mental disease.
A. Investigation of the applicant ’ s case
7. In the period from 19 September until 25 October 2003 during the questionings conducted in the presence of counsel the applicant confessed, and furthermore confessed to murders of another five persons.
8. On 20 September 2003 the Kopeysk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region remanded the applicant in custody upon the investigator ’ s request.
9. On 14 November 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk extended the applicant ’ s detention. It was subsequently extended on 18 February, 23 April and 17 September 2004 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence, might abscond, reoffend, interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way. On 17 September 2004 the applicant detention was extended until 25 November 2004.
10. On 4 March 2004 the investigator ordered a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant.
11. On 16 July 2004 the commission of experts concluded that at the time of examination the applicant was in an acute phase of the disease and was not able to account for his actions. It was therefore impossible to determine the applicant ’ s state of mind at the time of the offences. The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision.
12. On 22 October 2004 the applicant ’ s case was sent by the investigator to the court.
13. On 11 November 2004 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant ’ s detention.
14. The court hearings in the applicant ’ s case started on 1 7 November 2004.
15. On 11 February 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court ordered compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination. The court also stated that until his placement to the hospital the preventive measure should remain unchanged. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“ The court has no reason to doubt the conclusions of the medical experts [ of 16 July 2004]. Taking into account the mental state of Y. and the nature of committed acts posing a danger to society and the need for compulsory treatment in a specialized psychiatric hospital with intensive supervision, the court considers that in accordance with Articles 97, 99 (1) (g), 101 (4) of the Criminal Code he should be placed in this kind of hospital for compulsory treatment. However the question of releasing him from execution of sentence or criminal responsibility cannot be currently resolved, as it was not possible to resolve the question of sanity of Y. in relation to the alleged acts due to a temporary disorder, namely the depressive episode of severe degree. In these circumstances Y. should be placed in the mental hospital until the improvement of his condition ...
The preventive measure should remain unchanged until his placement in the mental hospital .”
16. The applicant ’ s counsel appealed. In particular she argued that the applicant should be released, as the compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision would worsen his state of health. He should be treated in a mental hospital of a general type, noting that more than seven months had passed since the last medical examination.
17. On 15 April 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 22 July 2005 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence and the consideration of his case on the merits was still pending.
18. On 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of 11 February 2005 and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first instance court. The Supreme Court noted that the first instance court had wrongly applied the provisions of the Code of the Criminal Procedure on compulsory medical treatment of offenders who had committed a crime in the state of insanity to the applicant ’ s case since his state of mind at the time of the commission of the crimes had not yet been established. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Having examined the materials of the case, grounds of appeal statements ... the court finds that the decision should be quashed due to the violation of rules of criminal procedure.
The present criminal case was transmitted to the Regional Court with a view of application of the compulsory measures of a medical nature. The court considered this case according to the Articles 441 - 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ... and found that Y. having a mental disease, currently in acute state, committed the acts ... and placed him in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision for compulsory treatment until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination.
However according to the Article 443 (1) of the Criminal Code [Code of Criminal Procedure] the measures indicated in Article 99 of the Criminal Code could be applied only in respect of the person who has committed an act, prohibited by the criminal law, in the state of insanity, or to a person who became mentally ill after committing the crime, which makes it impossible to sentence him or to execute it. Only in such circumstances is it possible to consider the case according to these rules ... provided by Articles 440-443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It follows from the materials of the case, in particular from the results of the expert examination, that Y. does not fall into any of these categories of persons as until improvement of his acute condition it is not possible to establish whether he committed an act, prohibited by the criminal law, in the state of insanity, or has plunged into a state of mental disorder after committing the crime, which makes it impossible to sentence him or to execute the sentence.
Nevertheless the court accepted this case and considered it according to Articles 440-443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the same time the court in its decision notes that Y. committed the act, prohibited by the criminal law ... However as it mentioned before it does not follow from the expert report that he was in a state of insanity ...
At the same time it follows from the experts report ... that Y. suffers from the acute state of the disease and is in need of the treatment in a psychiatric institution. According to Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it is established that a person to whom detention on remand has been applied as a preventive measure suffers from a mental illness, a court, upon a prosecutor ’ s request and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 108 of the of Code of Criminal Procedure, shall take a decision authorising a transfer of that person to a psychiatric hospital ...
The preventive measure shall remain unchanged. ”
19. On 23 June 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court scheduled another hearing of the applicant ’ s case for 7 July 2005.
20. On 7 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor in order to cure the violations of certain procedural rules. The court also extended the applicant ’ s detention on remand. The decision remained silent as to the grounds on which such conclusions were based and also as to the period of such authorised detention or the date of its next review. The applicant appealed. In particular he indicated that the period of his detention had expired.
21. On 21 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 22 October 2005 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence.
22. On 26 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. Referring to the gravity of the charges, it noted that there were no reasons which would make it necessary to cancel or change that preventive measure.
23. On 10 October 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 22 January 2006 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence and the consideration of his case on the merits was still pending.
C. Suspension of the investigation and medical treatment of the applicant
24. On 25 October 2005 the investigator suspended the criminal investigation until the improvement of the applicant ’ s condition. The deputy prosecutor of the Chelyabinsk Region asked the court to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric institution, relying on Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. On the same date the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk, relying on Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the applicant ’ s transfer to a psychiatric institution until the improvement of his condition. The court noted that since it did not deal with the issue of compulsory medical treatment of the applicant it was not authorized at that stage to determine the type of the institution the applicant had to be transferred to. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“It follows from the medical expert ’ s report that Y. suffers from the acute state of the disease. Currently he is not able to understand the factual character of his actions and control them. Taking into account his current mental state it is not possible to establish his mental state at the material time in respect of the acts he is accused of. Taking into account his current mental state, the presence of the mood disorders, the hallucinatory experiences, the lack of criticism towards his own mental state, Y. represents a danger to society and is in need of the treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition. According to Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court can transfer a person who is detained on remand to an inpatient psychiatric institution when it is established that the person suffers from a psychiatric illness. Taking into account the circumstances of the case the court takes the decision about the transfer of Y. to the mental hospital. However the court does not deal with the issue of compulsory medical treatment of the applicant; thus it is not authorised at that stage to determine the type of the institution the applicant had to be transferred to ...
... Decides to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric institution ... ”
26. The applicant ’ s counsel appealed. She argued, in particular, that she had not been notified of the hearing and the applicant was not in the acute state of the disease anymore.
27. On 17 November 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision on the applicant ’ s transfer.
28. The administration of the remand prison IZ-74/3 of Chelyabinsk asked the court to determine the type of psychiatric institution the applicant had to be transferred to.
29. On 13 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Smolensk psychiatric hospital of a specialized type with intensified supervision.
30. On 17 January 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk taking into account the results of the expert examination of 16 July 2004 decided that the applicant had to be transferred to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“ ... Taking into account the medical expert ’ s report of 16.07.2004 ... the court considers it necessary to transfer Y. to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition ... ”
31. On 2 February 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 17 January 2006.
32. On 22 March 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk upheld the investigator ’ s decision of 25 October 2005 to suspend the proceedings. The applicant appealed.
33. On 9 June 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 March 2006.
34. On 22 September 2006 the medical commission of the Smolensk psychiatric hospital concluded that the applicant ’ s condition had improved so that he could be transferred back to the judicial and investigation authorities.
35. On 17 November 2006 the Sychevskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region passed the decision to stop the compulsory medical treatment of the applicant.
D. Resuming of the investigation
36. On 28 December 2006 the investigation was resumed and the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave the town and was released.
37. On 10 January 2007 the prosecutor decided to conduct an outpatient psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. The applicant failed to appear and his representative requested an inpatient examination.
38. On 7 March 2007 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk ordered the applicant ’ s inpatient psychiatric expert examination.
39. On 19 April 2007 the commission of experts delivered the results of the examination. The commission of experts concluded that at the time of the crimes the applicant was in a state of insanity. The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision.
40. On 25 July 2007 the applicant ’ s case was sent to the court.
41. By decision of 21 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court scheduled the hearing of the applicant ’ s case for 22 August 2007.
42. On 22 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court ordered the applicant ’ s detention for three months with reference to the expert ’ s report of 19 April 2007 and to the fact that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence.
E. Additional medical examination and return of the case to the prosecutor
43. On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s counsel lodged a request for conducting an additional psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. On 22 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court granted the request of the lawyer.
44. On 17 November 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until the end of consideration of the case by the trial court. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he had changed his place of residence without due notification of the investigation authorities. On 14 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 17 November 2007.
45. On 6 December 2007 the commission of experts delivered the results of the psychiatric examination, which confirmed the conclusions reached in the report of 19 April 2007 and the applicant ’ s inability to take part in the court ’ s hearings.
46. On 18 February 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court decided to return the case to the prosecutor to correct the inaccuracy in the description of the facts of the case. On the same day the court also extended the applicant ’ s detention on remand until 22 May 2008.
47. On 12 May 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court scheduled the hearing of the applicant ’ s case for 23 May 2008 and extended the applicant ’ s detention on remand until 22 August 2008.
48. On 20 August 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention on remand until 22 November 2008. It referred again to the fact that he had changed his place of residence without due notification of the investigation authorities.
49. On 11 September 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court found it established that the applicant had sexually assaulted and murdered six women and stole the belongings of one of them. Since the applicant had committed the crimes in the state of insanity, the court relieved him of criminal responsibility and ordered his compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision. The applicant appealed.
50. On 25 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 11 September 2008.
51. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in force since 1 January 1997, and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in force as from 1 July 2002 ( “ CCrP ” ) set out the grounds and procedure for the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature. Article 435 of CCrP does not specify the type of a psychiatric institution the person so detained can be transferred to. In relevant parts they read as follows :
A. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Article 97. Grounds for the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature
“1. Compulsory measures of a medical nature may be applied by a court to individuals:
(a) who, in a state of insanity, committed an offence described in [...] the ... present Code;
(b) who, after having committed a criminal offence, became mentally ill, making it impossible to sentence him and execute that sentence;
(c) who committed a criminal offence and who suffer from a mental illness, which does not [reach the level of insanity];
(d) who committed a criminal offence and who were considered in need of treatment for alcoholism or drug abuse.
2. Compulsory measures of a medical nature shall only be applied to people [falling within the situations] listed in the first paragraph of the present Article in cases where the mental disorders are linked to the ability of those persons to cause substantial damage or to present a danger to themselves or other individuals.”
Article 99. Compulsory medical measures
“1. The court may impose the following compulsory medical measures:
a) out ‑ patient compulsory psychiatric observation and treatment;
b) compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a general type;
c) compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type;
d) compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision ”.
B. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation
“1. When a court finds it proven that a criminal offence was committed by that person in a state of insanity or that after having committed a criminal offence the person became mentally ill, making it impossible to sentence him and execute the sentence, the court shall take a decision in accordance with Articles 21 and 81 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation reliving that person from criminal responsibility or from serving the sentence and authorising the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to him. ..”
Article 435. Placement in a psychiatric hospital
“1. When it is established that a person to whom detention on remand has been applied as a preventive measure suffers from a mental illness, a court, upon a prosecutor ’ s request and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 108 of the present Code, shall take a decision authorising a transfer of that person to a psychiatric hospital.
2. Placement of a person who is not detained on remand in a psychiatric hospital may be authorised by a court in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 203 of the present Code.”
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
52. The applicant complained that his placement in a psychiatric hospital on the basis of the court ’ s order of 25 October 2005 had been in violation of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention. This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(e) the lawful detention ... of persons of unsound mind ...”
53. The Government claimed that the applicant ’ s rights under Article 5 of the Convention had not been violated. As to the placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital, the Government indicated that the procedure prescribed by law was duly followed by the authorities. The applicant ’ s placement was authorised by the judge at the request of the prosecutor and based on the medical report. The applicant ’ s interests were represented by the lawyer and his guardian was duly notified of the hearings. They also submitted that although Article 435 of the CCrP did not provide the exact type of the psychiatric institution the detained person can be transferred to, it was the court ’ s task on a case by case basis to specify a concrete type of the psychiatric institution suitable for an accused relying on the facts and the expert reports provided before it.
54. The applicant maintained his claim. He submitted that his involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital with intensified supervision on the basis of the court ’ s orders of 25 October 2005 and 17 January 2006 decided in his absence had been unlawful.
55. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of the Convention contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, inter alia, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 96, Series A no. 39; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 49, ECHR 2000-III; and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008). However, the applicability of one ground does not necessarily preclude that of another: detention may, depending on the circumstances, be justified under more than one sub ‑ paragraph (see Eriksen v. Norway, 27 May 1997, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ III, and Erkalo v. the Netherlands, 2 September 1998, § 50, Reports 1998 ‑ VI ).
56. The Court observes that on 20 September 2003 the Kopeysk Town Court authorised the applicant ’ s detention, finding that the gravity of the charges against him and his presenting a danger to society warranted the deprivation of liberty. On 11 September 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court found that the applicant had committed six murders. It, however, concluded that the applicant ’ s mental illness precluded him from bearing criminal responsibility and serving a sentence. He was to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for compulsory treatment. Accordingly, the Court considers that the periods of detention of the applicant from 20 September 2003 to 11 September 2008 fall within Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention as it was effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on criminal charges based, as was not disputed by the parties, on a reasonable suspicion of having committed the offences he was charged with. In turn, although the parties have not taken a stance on this issue, the Court considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case and the wording of the court ’ s decisions, that in the instant case the applicant ’ s detention starting from 25 October 2005 until 17 November 2006 also falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Erkalo, cited above, § 51, and Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, § 62, 11 May 2004; Proshkin v. Russia, no. 28869/03, § 53, 7 February 2012, see Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 70, 17 December 2013 ).
57. The Court further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
58. The Court reiterates that the applicant ’ s complaint concerns the alleged unlawfulness of his confinement in a psychiatric hospital, while detained on remand, pursuant to a court order of 25 October 2005, as upheld on appeal on 17 November 2005, on the basis of the medical recommendation of 16 July 2004 (see paragraph 25 above). The order was executed on 13 January 2006 and the applicant ’ s release from the hospital and his return to the ordinary detention on remand was ordered on 17 November 2006.
59. Whereas the Court reiterates that it does not call in question the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s detention on remand under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see paragraph 56 above), it nevertheless falls to the Court to examine whether his placement in the psychiatric hospital from 13 January to 17 November 2006 complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention. Such placement must, as well, be carried out “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and be “lawful”.
60. Reiterating that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, p. 21, § 49, Series A no. 129), the Court accepts that the applicant ’ s placement in the psychiatric institution, was “lawful”, if this term is construed narrowly, in the sense of the formal compatibility of the applicant ’ s admission with the procedural and material requirements of domestic law. It also accepts the argument that it was up to the domestic courts in each specific case to specify the type of psychiatric institution suitable for an accused on the basis of the facts and expert reports provided.
61. However, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, the lawfulness under domestic law of the applicant ’ s placement is not in itself decisive. It must also be established that it was in conformity with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Witold Litwa, cited above, §§ 72-73).
62. In this connection, an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of “unsound mind” unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV); thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000 ‑ X and Karamanof v. Greece, no. 46372/09, § 41, 26 July 2011 ).
63. The Court further reiterates that matters relating to the execution of the detention form part of the broader notion of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 44, Series A no. 93). This suggests that if the measure is not carried out immediately, in order to be lawful in the light of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention there has to be an opportunity to acquire an assessment to verify the necessity of the medical confinement within a reasonable time before its execution (see Raudevs, cited above, § 7 2 ). The relevant time at which a person must be established to be of unsound mind, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e), is the date of adoption of the measure depriving that person of liberty as a result of that condition (see O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, § 78, 24 November 2011, with further references).
64. The Court observes that the medical examination ordered by the national court was carried out in March-July 2004 (see paragraph 11 above) and on 16 July 2004 the medical experts recommended placing the applicant at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision because of “an acute phase of the disease”. The applicant was admitted to the hospital on 13 January 2006. The Court also notes that until the adoption of the final decision in January 2006 no other medical examinations, as to the continued necessity of confining the applicant to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision, or the possibility of applying any other less preventive measure, had been ordered, despite the fact that the applicant in his appeal against the placement suggested that it was no longer necessary (see paragraph 26 above). Accordingly, the applicant was admitted to the hospital in January 2006 on the basis of the medical report dating back to July 2004, that is approximately a year and six months gap (see Raudevs, cited above, § 52).
65. The Government have not brought to the Court ’ s attention any mechanisms existing under the domestic law regulating the time-limits for the execution of such decisions. Neither has the Court ’ s attention been brought to any procedures enabling further medical assessments to verify the necessity of compulsory hospitalisation in cases where an order or decision for confinement has been made but its execution has been delayed.
66. Thus, having regard to the obsolescence of the medical report on the basis of which the applicant was confined to the mental hospital, the lack of safeguards under the domestic law requiring a review of the medical necessity of compulsory medical measures before its execution and the delays in the execution of the applicant ’ s transfer at the material time, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s detention was carried out contrary to the principle established under Article 5 § 1 (e) that the existence of a mental illness warranting confinement in a hospital must be established at the time of its implementation.
67. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
68. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ... ”
69. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings had been reasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case, the mental disability of the applicant, the necessity to carry out four expert examinations and the large number of episodes ( six murders ). The investigation was adjourned for almost one year because of the applicant ’ s state of health. The investigation had been prompt, without any periods of inactivity on the part of the investigating team. After the commencement of the trial, the hearings had been scheduled at regular intervals.
70. The applicant maintained his complaint.
71. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
(a) Period to be taken into consideration
72. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is “charged” within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term. It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see, among many authorities, Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 81, 7 April 2005 ).
73. The period to be taken into consideration in the present case began on 19 September 2003 when the applicant was arrested and detained and ended on 25 December 2008 when his conviction became final. It follows that the period to be taken into consideration is 5 years, 3 months, 8 days. This period spanned the investigation stage and two levels of jurisdiction, the trial court and the court of appeal having examined the case on two occasions.
(b) The reasonableness of the length of proceedings
74. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what is at stake for the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II ).
75. The Court observes that the parties did not dispute that the case was complex. Having regard to the nature of the case against the applicant, the number of episodes and his mental state the Court sees no reason to conclude otherwise.
76. As regards the applicant ’ s conduct, the Court notes the Government ’ s argument that a substantial delay in the proceeding was caused by the applicant ’ s state of health, and that this delayed the proceedings through no fault of the authorities. The aggregate delay incurred as a result amounted to fourteen months at least (see paragraphs 24 ‑ 35 above). The Court notes that three psychiatric expert examinations, including one requested by the applicant ’ s lawyer initiative, took approximately twelve months in total.
77. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that except for an eight -month delay caused by the omissions in the investigation when the courts returned the applicant ’ s case twice to the prosecutor to correct its procedural deficiencies (see paragraphs 20 - 24 and 46 - 47 ), the authorities demonstrated sufficient diligence in handling the proceedings. The investigation stage was completed in one year and one month. The first trial hearings, including the appeal proceedings, lasted approximately six months. The second trial hearings, including the appeal proceedings, lasted approximately seven months.
78. Making an overall assessment of the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the total length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the latter did not go beyond what may be considered reasonable in this particular case.
79. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
80. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention alleging overall unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.
81. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
82. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
83. The applicant claimed 2,600,000 Russian roubles (48 ,000 euros (EUR) ) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage.
84. The Government contested that amount, stating that no award should be made to the applicant in the absence of any violations of his Convention rights. They also suggested that should the Court find a violation of the applicant ’ s rights, the finding of a violation would suffice.
85. The Court observes that it has found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, on account of the applicant ’ s placement in a psychiatric institution. The applicant must have suffered anguish and distress on account of this, which cannot be compensated by a mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10, 0 00 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.