4 MAINOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT follows that the remainder of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 20. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that the Russian authorities had not pursued the removal proceedings in good faith because they had been aware that his removal had not been a realistic possibility. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (f) the lawful arrest or detention ... of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.” 21. The Government submitted a summary of decisions taken in the removal proceedings and denied that there was a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. A. Admissibility 22. The Court considers 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 23. The Court reiterates that, to avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the ground of detention relied on by the Government; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009, and Kim, cited above, § 49). 24. The Court notes that the applicant remained in preventive detention pending the enforcement of the removal order for more than two years. The only measure the Russian authorities deployed during that period was the sending of several letters of request to the Embassy of Tajikistan, seeking to obtain a laissez-passer document for the applicant. However, in doing so, they merely followed the established procedure in blatant disregard for the