A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document..
89. As regards the question of whether the first applicant’s detention during this period was “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court notes that the first applicant’s deprivation of liberty – from 2 to 3 February – was not documented at all. The Court reiterates in this connection that the unrecorded detention of an individual is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and discloses a grave violation of that provision (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002‑IV, and Nagiyev, cited above, § 64).
100. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that, by using a standard formula merely listing the grounds for detention without addressing the specific facts of the first applicant’s case, and by relying on irrelevant grounds, the authorities failed to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the need for the first applicant’s pre-trial detention.
151. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the first applicant. It accordingly holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 under its procedural limb.