GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT THE LAW I. JURISDICTION AND CORRESPONDENCE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT WITH THE 41. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023). 42. In view of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction under Article 58 of the Convention, Articles 38, 41 and 46 in particular, as well as the corresponding provisions of the Rules of Court, continue to be applicable after 16 September 2022. The respondent Government’s abstention from further participation in the proceedings does not release them from the duty to cooperate with the Court and does not prevent the Court from continuing with the examination of applications where it retains jurisdiction (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia ((dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2 others, §§ 435-39, 30 November 2022, and Svetova and Others v. Russia, no. 54714/17, §§ 29-31, 24 January 2023). The Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate from a party’s failure or refusal to participate effectively in the proceedings (Rule 44C of the Rules of Court). 43. The Court observes that it continues to use the electronic secured Government website as the means of communication with the authorities of the Russian Federation (see the Practice Direction on secured electronic filing by Governments, issued by the President of the Court in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Court on 22 September 2008 and amended on 29 September 2014 and 5 July 2018) and in order to respect the adversarial nature of the proceedings before it. The site remains secure and accessible to the authorities of the respondent State. II. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 44. Relying on Chigirinova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 28448/16, 13 December 2016), the Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies because he had not lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 45. The Court notes that Chigirinova (cited above) concerned proceedings under the Code of Administrative Procedure, while the present case concerns proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The review/cassation appeal procedure provided for in the CAO is not an effective remedy which needs to be exhausted (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), 17