A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the document.
43. In the present case, the Court notes that although the applicant was accused of murder, at the time of his placement in prison no. 13 he had not been convicted. As a minor placed for the first time in detention, he was obviously in a particularly vulnerable position. His suspected mental disability (see paragraph 21 above) could only have exacerbated his vulnerability. Nonetheless, he was placed in a cell with five other detainees who had already been convicted at least by a first-instance court of serious offences, such as murder and sexual violence. (…) In this respect the Court notes that under both Council of Europe and United Nations prison rules (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above), untried prisoners should be detained separately from sentenced prisoners.
64. In this context the Court considers that the applicant’s lawyer made a compelling argument, both before the domestic courts (see paragraph 10 above) and in his observations, that the prosecutor in charge of the case had been aware of the entirety of the applicant’s alleged actions from the very beginning (see paragraph 7 above). As such, it cannot be said that during the murder investigation that prosecutor became aware of separate offences allegedly committed by the applicant and that in reaction thereto he initiated new criminal investigation.
67. The Court considers that such an artificial separation of the charges with the obvious aim of extending the time-limit in respect of the applicant’s detention (which would otherwise have been unlawful) constitutes an element of bad faith on the part of the authorities. As such, the applicant’s detention in respect of newly opened criminal proceedings after 9 December 2012 was arbitrary, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention