CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I agree with the Court ’ s conclusions in the present case, including the finding that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

In my dissenting opinion in the case of Dolgova v. Russia ( no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006 ) I referred to the judgment in the case of Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) to underline that “[w]hether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features” ( Labita , § 152). Although the period of detention in the present case is the same as in the Dolgova case, there are factors which, in my opinion, distinguish it from Dolgova and warrant the conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3, such as the applicant ’ s chronic kidney disease, the inhuman conditions of his detention (see paragraphs 42-45) and his father ’ s terminal illness and death. The domestic courts had an obligation under Article 99 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure to take those factors into account.