bylaws and official documents related to expulsion where these two different categories of people are viewed as a single unit.21 26. To ensure expulsion, stateless persons are confined in CTDFNs – specialised institutions for detention “until expulsion.” There is no judicial oversight of the detention period or the legitimacy of detention (even though courts have regular oversight over pretrial detention in criminal cases). The law sets out two years for executing an expulsion ruling; after which, persons who could not be removed are released from the CTDFN, but are not issued any documents that would allow them to live legally in the RF. Therefore, many stateless persons end up being detained repeatedly for “violating the migration regime.” 27. It is important to note that a two-year maximum detention period is higher than the practice in most European countries. Furthermore, the likelihood of released detainees being detained again, makes this even more problematic.22 28. When expulsion orders are appealed on the basis that they cannot be executed, the courts of higher instance often prescribe the replacement of expulsion with “controlled self-departure” from the RF. At first glance, these decisions appear to favour stateless persons (a judge agrees that expulsion cannot be executed and understands that the detention does not have a legal and achievable goal, which effectively means that the stateless person is released from the CTDFN). However, the court is actually obliging the stateless person to commit the crime of leaving Russia without valid documents (Article 322 of the RF Criminal Code “illegal crossing of a state border”). This practice perpetuates the irregularity of stateless persons, and can heighten their vulnerability to detention and expulsion in the country they travel to. 29. In 2017, ADC Memorial won a case in the RF Constitutional Court which found that the denial of the right to appeal against administrative decisions to detain stateless persons in specialised institutions for the purposes of administrative expulsion, to be unconstitutional.23 The Constitutional Court ruled that “Federal legislators should amend the Code of Administrative Offences so that it ensures reasonable judicial control over the timeframes of the detention of stateless persons subject to forced expulsion in specialized institutions.”24 The RF government has subsequently made assurances that amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses intended to regulate the terms and procedures for appealing placement in a SITDFN will be submitted to the State Duma in December 2017.25 21 These documents include Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates fines for “foreign nationals and stateless persons” “with or without expulsion” or mandatory expulsion for violations of the migration regime; RF government resolutions of 30 December 2013 No. 1306 and of 8 April 2013 No. 310, which regulate the conditions and procedures for confining “foreign nationals and stateless persons subject to deportation or forcible expulsion from the Russian Federation,” and many others. Judges taking a by-the-book approach also invoke this set phrase (“foreign nationals or stateless persons”). In four Russian regions (Moscow, Moscow Oblast, Saint Petersburg, and Leningrad Oblast), the law prescribes a fine and mandatory expulsion for violations of the migration regime, while in other regions, judges may limit this to a fine, although such cases are rare. 22 For an overview of challenges and applicable standards related to the detention of stateless persons in Europe, see the European Network on Statelessness Publications, Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention: A Regional Toolkit for Practitioners, (2016), available at: http://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www.statelessness.eu/files/ENS_Detention_Toolkit.pdf; and Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention: An Agenda for Change, (2017), available at: http://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www.statelessness.eu/files/attachments/resources/ENS_LockeInLimbo_Detention_Agenda_onl ine.pdf 23 The case of Noé Mskhiladze, hearing on 18 April 2017 24 Decision in the case to check the constitutionality of the provisions of articles 31.7 and 31.9 of the RF Code of Administrative Offenses. 23 May 2017. http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/News/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=3337 25 Communication from Russian Federation concerning the case of KIM v. Russian Federation (Application No. 44260/13), 11.04.2017) https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680708107 7