    violation of Article 3 by extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan, violation of Article 13, by Russia's failure to provide effective and accessible defence measures in connection with the plaintiff’s invocation of the risks under Article 3, violation of Article 5 § 4 on the ground that there was no judicial procedure for examining the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s detention with a view to his extradition, violation of Article 5 § 1 by his detention on the purpose of extradition to Uzbekistan. 7.2. Article 5 „The right to liberty and security”  Mikolenko v. Estonia, 10664/05, 08.10.2009 The plaintiff was a former Soviet and Russian army officer who had served in Estonia since 1983. Following the restoration of Estonian independence, he was refused an extension of his residence permit in that country. Repeated orders from the Estonian authorities to leave the country and appeals from the plaintiff followed. Subsequently, the plaintiff was arrested on 29 October 2003 for failure to comply with the departure order. As immediate expulsion was not possible, as the applicant did not have a valid passport, the Administrative Court decided that the applicant should be detained in a deportation centre for the execution of the deportation order. It is not clear whether the applicant has lodged an appeal against this decision. During the applicant's detention, the Estonian Migration Committee requested the Russian Embassy to issue a return certificate to the plaintiff. However, on 10 December 2003, the Embassy replied that the applicant could only return to Russia on the basis of a Russian foreign passport, which he could apply for in person or through a representative. Attempts to obtain a valid document from the Russian Embassy to enforce the expulsion failed, and no further measures were taken between August 2004 and March 2006 to secure the plaintiff's expulsion. On 11 June 2007, the Migration Committee submitted a request to the Russian Embassy for readmission on the basis of the EU-Russia Readmission Agreement, which entered into force on 1 June 2007 and required Russian authorities to issue travel documents to people who will be readmitted regardless of their will. However, on 26 June 2007 the Embassy replied that the Russian side was of the opinion that the plaintiff did not fit into the readmission agreement. In the meantime, at the request of the Committee on Migration, the plaintiff's detention was extended every two months by the Administrative Court. The plaintiff appealed against the extension in some cases, but on each occasion the higher court eventually rejected the appeals. On 8 October 2007 the Administrative Court refused to further extend the plaintiff's detention on the grounds that it had become disproportionate and unconstitutional. On that day, the Management Board sent the complainant a written reminder that his expulsion order was still in force and he was ordered to reside in his permanent residence and to report to the committee any temporary or permanent change of place of residence. 59