10 KIM v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT times, asking it to issue a travel document for the applicant. It is true that the Russian authorities could not compel the Embassy to issue such a document. However, there is no indication that they pursued the matter vigorously or endeavoured to enter into negotiations with the Uzbek authorities with a view to expediting its delivery (compare Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 77, 12 February 2013; Raza v. Bulgaria, no. 31465/08, § 73, 11 February 2010; Tabesh, cited above, § 56; and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 66). 51. It is a matter of particular concern to the Court that the Russian authorities sent their first letter to the Embassy of Uzbekistan more than four months after the applicant’s placement in custody. The letter concerned the applicant and twelve other individuals who were presumed to be nationals of Uzbekistan. While administrative convenience may call for a group treatment of similar requests under different circumstances, the fact that the applicant was in detention required special diligence from the authorities and the four-month delay was clearly in breach of that requirement (see Tabesh, cited above, § 56, in which the authorities remained passive for three months). 52. Upon receipt of the letter from the Uzbek authorities dated 5 February 2013, the Russian authorities became aware that the applicant’s expulsion to Uzbekistan was no longer a realistic prospect because he was not a national of that State. The Government have not provided evidence of any efforts having been made to secure the applicant’s admission to a third country. There is no indication that they asked him to specify such a country or that they took any steps to explore that option on their own initiative (compare Amie and Others, cited above, § 77). The Court reiterates that detention cannot be said to have been effected with a view to the applicant’s deportation if this was no longer feasible (see Mikolenko v. Estonia, no. 10664/05, §§ 64-65, 8 October 2009). This was also conceded by the respondent Government. 53. The Court further reiterates that the domestic authorities have an obligation to consider whether removal is a realistic prospect and whether detention with a view to removal is from the outset, or continues to be, justified (see Amie and Others, cited above, § 77, and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 68). In such circumstances the necessity of procedural safeguards becomes decisive. However, the Court has already established that the applicant did not have any effective remedy by which to contest the lawfulness and length of his detention, and the Government have not pointed to any other normative or practical safeguard. It follows that the Russian legal system did not provide for a procedure capable of preventing the risk of arbitrary detention pending expulsion (see Azimov, cited above, §§ 153-54; Louled Massoud, cited above, § 71, and, mutatis mutandis, Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, § 114, 23 October 2008). In the absence of such safeguards, the applicant spent the entire two-year period,