CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF5299C86 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 1 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1386/14 Arbi Vakhitovich AMIZHAYEV against Russia lodged on 24 November 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Arbi Vakhitovich Amizhayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Groznyy in the Chechen Republic. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Timishev, a lawyer practising in Nalchik. On 23 June 2012 the applicant was arrested in connection with a drug-related offence and placed in custody. On 14 August 2012 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Groznyy found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. On 30 May 2013 the Oktyabrskiy District Court again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The court stated that the “preventive measure should remain unchanged until the conviction [became] final”. On 24 June 2013 counsel for the applicant asked the director of the remand prison to release the applicant since he had already served the one-year sentence. On the same day a judge of the District Court faxed a letter to the director, informing him that the applicant should not be released until the Supreme Court had examined the matter on appeal since the District Court ordered the preventive measure to remain unchanged. On 3 July 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the applicant was released. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that his detention in the period from 23 June to 3 July 2013 was unlawful.   Questions to the parties   Was the applicant’s detention between 23 June and 3 July 2013 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it covered by any exceptions to the right to liberty listed in subparagraphs (a) to (f) of this provision?