-32 repeated suicide attempts.54 In the case of Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the applicant’s conditions of detention with adults in a police station where the cell lacked the basic amenities indispensable for extended detention. It did not have a window and offered no access to natural light or air. It was not equipped with bunks and bedding was not provided. There was no toilet or sink. Prisoners were not given any food.55 In a number of cases against Bulgaria, Turkey, France and other member states the ECtHR found violations of Article 3 due to physical ill-treatment of children in detention and the lack of proper investigation. The Court took account of the specific vulnerability of the applicants when assessing the nature and the intensity of the ill-treatment. In several cases against Turkey the ECtHR found violations of Article 5 of the Convention due to the excessive length of pre-trial detention of children.56 In Zherdev v. Ukraine the ECtHR found that the applicant’s placement with adult detainees, along with other conditions of his pre-trial detention, amounted to degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.57 ECtHR, Blokhin v. Russia, 2016: The case concerned the detention for 30 days of a 12-year old boy, who was suffering from a mental and neuro-behavioural disorder, in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. The Court found that about one month before being placed in detention, he had been examined by specialists who had prescribed him medication and regular consultation by a neurologist and psychiatrist, and that immediately following his release he had been hospitalised for treatment for three weeks. Moreover, his grandfather had informed the authorities of the child’s condition at the detention hearing; there was therefore sufficient evidence that the authorities had been aware of that medical condition. The Government had failed to show that during his stay at the centre for 30 days – entirely under the control of the authorities, who had been 54. ECtHR, Güveç v. Turkey, No. 70337/01, Judgment of 20 January 2009. 55. ECtHR, Kuptsov and Kuptsova, No. 6110/03, Judgment of 3 March 2011. 56. See ECtHR, Selçuk v. Turkey, No. 21768/02, Judgment of 10 January 2006; ECtHR, Koşti and Others v. Turkey, No. 74321/01, Judgment of 3 May 2007; ECtHR, Nart v. Turkey, No. 20817/04, Judgment of 6 May 2008. 57. ECtHR, Zherdev v. Ukraine, No. 34015/07, Judgment of 27 April 2017.