8 GAHRAMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN DECISION different from those described above where the applicants’ detention was due to intervention by the police. In the instant case the applicant was stopped by border officials following passport control in an international airport because his name appeared under the status “to be stopped” in the database of the SBS. 40. The Court reiterates in this connection that the context in which action is taken is an important factor to be taken into account, since situations commonly occur in modern society where the public may be called on to endure restrictions on freedom of movement or liberty in the interests of the common good (see Austin and Others, cited above, § 59). An air traveller may be seen in this regard as consenting to a series of security checks by choosing to travel by plane (see Gillan and Quinton, cited above, § 64). In particular, these security checks may include having his identity papers checked or having his baggage searched, and also waiting for further enquiries to be carried out to establish his identity or determine that he does not represent a security risk for the flight. 41. The Court accepts in this respect that where a passenger has been stopped by border officials during border control in an airport in order to clarify his situation and where this detention has not exceeded the time strictly necessary to comply with relevant formalities, no issue arises under Article 5 of the Convention. 42. The Court will therefore examine the circumstances of the applicant’s detention in order to determine whether in the present case the applicant’s detention at Baku Heydar Aliyev Airport exceeded the time strictly necessary to comply with the formalities relevant for the clarification of his situation. 43. The Court observes that the applicant was stopped at 9.29 a.m. on 18 July 2006 during border control as his name appeared under the status “to be stopped” in the database of the SBS. The applicant was not allowed to leave the country and was taken to a room by SBS officers for further clarification of his situation. A record of the prevention of the applicant from crossing the State border was drawn up and his baggage was searched by SBS officers. He was not handcuffed or confined in a special detention facility, but it is undisputed by the parties that during his stay in the SBS room the applicant was not free to leave that room. It is also undisputed by the parties that the applicant’s stay in the SBS room ended immediately following the clarification of his situation and he was then free to leave the airport. Even if the precise overall duration of the applicant’s stay in the SBS room is not known, with the applicant maintaining that he had been detained for approximately four hours and the Government arguing that he had been kept there approximately only two hours, it could not have exceeded a few hours.