MAINOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 5 fact that the applicant was not a national of that State and that Tajikistan had no legal obligation to admit him. The Court reiterates that detention cannot be said to have been effected with a view to the applicant’s removal if it was not a realistic prospect because he was not a national of the State to which the authorities sought to remove him (compare Kim, cited above, §§ 52-53, and the case-law cited therein). The Government did not provide evidence of any efforts having been made to secure the applicant’s admission to a third country. The authorities had not asked him to specify such a country or taken any steps to explore that option on their own initiative (contrast with Chkhikvishvili v. Russia, no. 43348/13, § 30, 25 October 2016). Moreover, the Russian authorities did not seek to elucidate the reasons for a mismatch between the applicant’s name and the record in their database. They did not interview the applicant in that connection, they did not establish whether the entry in the database had been erroneous or whether the applicant had used a different name in the past. 25. Lastly, the Court reiterates that preventive detention with a view to removal should not be punitive in nature. The maximum punishment for an administrative offence being thirty days, it was abnormal that the applicant spent more than two years in custody in the framework of a “preventive” measure (see Kim, cited above, § 55). The Court also notes that, following the District Court’s decision of 29 July 2016 ordering the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant was released more than two weeks later, on 13 August 2016. The Government did not explain what the legal basis for his detention in that period had been. 26. In the light of the above considerations, the Court finds that the applicant’s detention was not carried out in good faith due to the lack of a realistic prospect of his expulsion and the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence. 27. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 28. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 29. The applicant asked the Court to determine the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He also asked the Court to hold that the sums payable to him be transferred to the bank account of his representative Ms Tseytlina, as he did not have any identity document and could not open an account in his own name.