36 L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT and, consequently, to detention on those grounds (see Egamberdiyev, § 62, and Azimov, § 171, both cited above). 151. The Court further notes that the maximum penalty for deprivation of liberty for an administrative offence under the Code of Administrative Offences in force is thirty days, and that detention with a view to expulsion should not be punitive in nature and should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, as established by the Russian Constitutional Court. In the present case, the “preventive” measure was much heavier than the “punitive” one, which is not normal (see Azimov, cited above, § 172). 152. In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION 153. The applicants further complained under Article 34 of the Convention that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had interfered with their ability to communicate with the Court effectively. They also pointed to a lack of interpreting services, which had further hindered their effective participation in the proceedings before the Court. Article 34 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “The Court may receive applications from any person ... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.” 154. The Government contested the applicants’ submissions. They stated that the restrictions on them meeting with their representatives had been reasonable and had not interfered with their right to communicate with the Court. They noted that the detention centre’s daily routine was applicable to all inmates and not just the applicants; that there had been time available every day to arrange for such meetings; that telephone contact, letters and parcels with the representatives had not been limited and could serve as further means of communication. The Government stressed that while the applicants’ representative Ms Golovanchuk had met with the applicants on 17 December 2014, there had been no requests lodged, or refused, by her on any other occasion. 155. The applicants maintained their complaint. 156. The Court reiterates that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 102, ECHR 2005-I). In this context, “pressure” includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation but also other improper indirect