E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 55 ‘measure of restraint’ under judicial authority, but also imposed restrictions on the use of this measure. Thus, under Art. 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the use of pre-trial custody must be based on a well-founded assumption that a suspect or an accused: 1) may attempt to escape the inquest, preliminary investigation, or trial; 2) may continue to engage in criminal activity; or 3) may attempt to intimidate a witness or any other participants of the criminal proceedings, destroy evidence or in any other way hinder the proceedings. In accordance with art. 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code, custody can only be applied in exceptional cases. Art. 108 part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provides that detention of a suspect or accused can be used as a measure of restraint only if they are suspected or accused of a crime punishable by more than two years of imprisonment, and where using a milder measure of restraint is unfeasible. A judge ordering detention as a measure of restraint must make a written statement of concrete factual circumstances underlying the decision. Also, on 10 October 2003, the Plenary of the Russian Supreme Court adopted Regulation No. 5 “On the application, by general jurisdiction courts, of generally recognized principles and standards of international law, and of international treaties Russia is party to.” In paragraph 14 of this Regulation, the Supreme Court established that arrest cannot be applied based only on the seriousness of criminal charges, but on other circumstances which may warrant the isolation of the suspect or accused.The new Criminal Procedure Code provides for a range of measures which can be used to control a suspect or an accused person besides custody, includingrelease on recognizance (signature), personal guarantee, bail or house arrest. However, contrary to what the Government claims, non-custodial measures are applied only occasionally. The general number of applied alternative measures (except for suspended sentences) makes up no more than 5% of the general number of verdicts and has not increased, but rather decreased (from 79,800 in 1997 to 53,000 in 2000). Alternative measures for minors, such as house arrest is very seldom applied, and measures such as personal guarantees are practically not applied. From 1997 to 2002 only one out of 255 petitions for replacing preventive detention with a personal guarantee has been satisfied. When judges have to choose between arresting a person and releasing him/or her on recognizance, the tendency is to order detention, whether well-justified or not. Defence attorneys and human rights lawyers report that very often judges order arrest of first-time and non-violent offenders. Moreover, in many cases they fail to indicate any of the legally established reasons for the use of detention, referring only to the seriousness of charges. Another factor which undermines efforts to reduce the number of pre-trial detainees is the failure of the new Criminal Procedure Code to impose mandatory limits on pre-trial detention during judicial proceedings. Even after the investigation and during the entire trial up to the moment of sentencing, the accused can be detained in a SIZO. Detention during trial can be excessively long, because criminal proceedings are often delayed due to courts’ overwhelming workloads and also due to problems with getting witnesses to appear. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that whenever a person is detained during an investigation, the court will automatically extend the term of detention, without even looking into the merits for his/or her continued custody. Generally, courts extend the term in a closed hearing, even in the absence of the prosecutor’s motion requesting continuous detention, and without hearing the accused or his/her defence attorney. This pattern of almost mandatory detention awaiting sentence combined with lengthy trials cause most criminal defendants to spend at least a year in SIZO. A delegation of the International Helsinki Federation (IHF) visiting SIZOs No. 5 and No. 6 in Moscow learned from the SIZO administrations that the average detention time was one year. While interviewing detainees in SIZO No. 5, the IHF delegation found teenagers who had spent 18 months in detention, and in SIZO No. 6 some female prisoners were found to have been detained for more than two years. Excessive use of