KIM v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 5 THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 26. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the detention centre for aliens had been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A. Admissibility 27. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 28. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and stated that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had fallen short of the applicable standards. 29. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the detention centre for aliens, which had been designed for short periods of detention not exceeding fifteen days but in which he had spent two years, had been inhuman and degrading. 30. Article 3, as the Court has observed on many occasions, enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim’s behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must, for a violation to be found, go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).