-28 the case of Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia. It concerns the alleged discrimination in the possibilities for imposition of life imprisonment on women, on older men and on children compared to adult men by the Russian criminal justice system (see text box).44 In the case of Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, the ECtHR found several violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the detention conditions, and the treatment of a mother and her new-born baby. The violations were found because of the shackling of the mother in the maternity hospital while giving birth, due to the bad material conditions of detention in the pre-trial detention centre, in respect of the medical care provided to the baby during his stay with the mother in the pre-trial detention centre and on account of the mother’s placement in a metal cage during court hearings.45 ECtHR, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, 2017: The applicants in this case alleged that, as adult males serving life sentences for a number of serious criminal offences, they had been discriminated against as compared to other categories of convicts – women, persons under 18 when their offence had been committed, or over 65 when the verdict had been delivered – who were exempt from life imprisonment by operation of the law. The ECtHR found that the justification for the difference in treatment between the applicants and certain other categories of offenders, namely to promote principles of justice and humanity, had been legitimate. It was also satisfied that exempting certain categories of offenders from life imprisonment had been a proportionate means to achieving those principles. In coming to that conclusion, it bore in mind the practical operation of life imprisonment in Russia, both as to the manner of its imposition and to the possibility of subsequent review. In particular, the life sentences imposed on the applicants themselves had not been arbitrary or unreasonable and would be reviewed after 25 years. Moreover, the ECtHR also took account of the considerable room for maneuver given to contracting States to decide on such matters as penal policy, given the lack of any European consensus on life sentencing apart from as concerned juvenile offenders, who were exempt from life imprisonment in all Contracting States without exception. 44. ECtHR, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, No. 60367/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 24 January 2017. 45. ECtHR, Korneykova and Korneykov, No. 56660/12, Judgment of 24 March 2016.