KIM v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 11 that is, the maximum period the Russian law stipulates for the enforcement of an expulsion order, in detention. 54. The Court is concerned about the applicant’s particularly vulnerable situation. As a stateless person, he was unable to benefit from consular assistance and advice, which would normally be extended by diplomatic staff of an incarcerated individual’s country of nationality. Furthermore, he appears to have no financial resources or family connections in Russia and he must have experienced considerable difficulties in contacting and retaining a legal representative. The domestic authorities do not appear to have taken any initiative to accelerate the progress of the removal proceedings and to ensure the effective protection of his right to liberty, although the decision by the Constitutional Court of 17 February 1998 may be read as expressly requiring them to do so (see paragraph 25 above). As a consequence, the applicant was simply left to languish for months and years, locked up in his cell, without any authority taking an active interest in his fate and well-being. 55. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the maximum penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty for an administrative offence under the Code of Administrative Offences is thirty days (see Azimov, cited above, § 172) and that detention with a view to expulsion should not be punitive in nature and should also be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, as established by the Russian Constitutional Court (see paragraph 25 above). In this case the “preventive” measure, in terms of its gravity, was much more serious than the “punitive” one, which is abnormal (see Azimov, cited above, § 172). 56. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the grounds for the applicant’s detention – action taken with a view to his expulsion – did not remain valid for the whole period of his detention due to the lack of a realistic prospect of his expulsion and the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence. 57. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 58. 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.” A. Damage 59. The applicant asked the Court to determine the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Having no identity