KIM v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 3 authorities’ failure to show special diligence in the conduct of the expulsion proceedings, contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. On 14 March 2013 a judge of the St Petersburg City Court rejected the appeal in a summary fashion. 14. Counsel also attempted to challenge the applicant’s detention as unlawful. By decision of 26 November 2012, the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg disallowed the complaint, finding that the decision of 19 July 2011 constituted a sufficient lawful basis for the ensuing detention. It noted in particular that the applicant would remain in custody “until his expulsion from Russia”. On 24 January 2013 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the District Court’s decision. 15. By letter of 5 February 2013, the consular department of the Embassy of Uzbekistan informed the FMS that the applicant was not a national of Uzbekistan and could not therefore be issued with a travel document. On 25 March 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Uzbekistan sent a further letter to the FMS, stating that the applicant was not an Uzbek national. 16. On 29 July 2013 the applicant was released on the basis of the expiry of the two-year time-limit for enforcement of the administrative-expulsion decision. B. Conditions of detention in the detention centre for aliens 17. The detention centre for aliens (Центр для содержания иностранных граждан) is located in Krasnoye Selo in St Petersburg and operated at the material time under the authority of the FMS. 18. The centre, an eight-storey building designed to hold 176 inmates, actually accommodated no fewer than 300 people at any one time and the number rose to 400 in the summertime and during special raids. 19. The applicant was initially held in cells 604 and 605. Each cell measured no more than ten square metres and housed five or six people. In the last ten months of his detention the applicant was held in cell 615, an eighteen-square-metre cell which he shared with four and occasionally up to seven other people. 20. There was no sink or access to drinking water from within the cells; there was one toilet and one shower per floor which were used by approximately forty inmates. 21. Up until March 2013 the applicant was allowed twenty to thirty minutes’ outdoor exercise once every two or three weeks in a tiny yard. 22. The facility did not offer any meaningful activities: no television, radio, newspapers or magazines were available.