GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT screenshots of the applicant’s image, printed them out and stored them in the case file. 11. It follows from a police report dated 26 August 2019 that the police anti-extremism unit conducted “operational-search activities” to identify the man in the photographs and the video published on Telegram, successfully identified him as the applicant and established his home address. 12. According to the applicant, at about 10 a.m. on 30 August 2019 the police anti-extremism unit went to his home while he was not there. At about 11 a.m. on the same day, he was arrested at an underground station. The police allegedly told him that he had been identified by the facial recognition CCTV cameras installed in the Moscow underground. 13. The applicant was then taken to a police station where he was charged with the administrative offence of breaching the established procedure for the conduct of public events under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. The charges stated that on 23 August 2019 the applicant had held a solo demonstration at the Chistye Prudy underground station and on the underground train using a “quickly (de)assembled object” and should therefore have submitted a prior notification to the local authorities. 14. In a letter of 2 September 2019, the acting head of the police anti-extremism unit requested the head of the Moscow underground security to provide copies of video-recordings of 23 August 2019 from 8.15 to 8.35 p.m. from twenty-two CCTV cameras installed at Okruzhnaya underground station. He relied on sections 6-3, 7-2(1) and 15-1 of the Operational-Search Activities Act (see paragraphs 22-23 and 25 below) and section 13-1(4) of the Police Act (see paragraph 29 below). He further stated that the request was being made in the framework of an inquiry being conducted with the aim of combating extremism during approved mass public events in Moscow. The police anti-extremism unit watched those recordings on 5 September 2019, took screenshots of the applicant’s image, printed them out and stored them in the case file. 15. On 23 September 2019 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant as charged. The court noted that the applicant had made oral submissions and had pleaded not guilty. It then relied, among others, on the screenshots of the Telegram channel and the screenshots of video-recordings from the surveillance cameras in the underground in support of its finding that the applicant had held a solo demonstration using a “quickly (de)assembled object”. Contrary to the applicant’s argument, the cardboard figure of Mr Kotov could be considered a “quickly (de)assembled object” because it had a prop. The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles ((RUB), about 283 euros). 16. The applicant appealed. He complained, in particular, that the operational-search activities performed to identify him had been unlawful because the Operational-Search Activities Act did not permit performing such activities to investigate administrative offences. The evidence thereby 3