THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows:

From his vague statements it appears that in September 1967 the

applicant became involved in a fight with two other men, resulting in

a pistol wound on his temple. After the fight he was arrested and

sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, apparently for robbery.

The applicant mentions that the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof)

rejected his appeal or plea of nullity on .. November 1969 without

giving him the opportunity of defending his case personally. Only a

lawyer was appointed for his defence. The applicant has not submitted

any documents relating to his case, nor has he given more detailed

information as to the reason of his arrest and his conviction.

He complains that he was wrongly convicted on the basis of false

evidence given against him. He states that already in 1947 and in 1961

he has been wrongly convicted and sentenced.

The applicant mainly complains of ill-treatment given to him by the

police after his arrest and by the officers in prison.

He alleges that after his arrest, five policemen ill-treated him. They

banged his head on the floor and kicked him. As a result of this

ill-treatment, and not because of the injury caused by the pistol shot,

he practically lost his eyesight. The prison authorities, as well as

the District Court (Kreisgericht) at W., refuse to have him examined

and treated in an eye clinic. They keep him alone without employment

or pastimes in a cell where he is living in permanent darkness.

He also alleges that the prisoners have to stand naked in the corridors

when the cells are inspected and that after one of these inspections

he found all his belongings on the floor of the cell and two packets

of tobacco missing.

He further alleges that the prison warders made four attempts to murder

him. Once they handcuffed him and thereby cut the blood supply

(Schlagader) in his right arm. Another time they pressed a handful of

steel material (Stahlsplendan) into his mouth and afterwards he was not

given any food for ten days. A third attempt at murder was made on ..

November 1969, when he was forced to sleep in the arrest cell in the

basement of the prison on a stone bed without a mattress and blankets.

Finally, another attempt was made by throwing open the door of his cell

unexpectedly which hit him on his temple.

Alleging a violation of most of the Article of the Convention, the

applicant requests the Commission to help him.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was wrongly

convicted and sentenced, an examination of the case as it has been

submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose

any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in

the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the applicant;

Whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the

Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observance of

the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention;

Whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an application

alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic

courts, except where the Commission considers that such errors might

have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms

limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the

Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/69 (X. v. Belgium -

Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v. Austria - Collection of

Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is no appearance of a

violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas it follows that

this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was ill-treated

in prison, the Commission finds that an examination of the file at the

present state does not give the information required for determining

the question of admissibility; whereas, therefore, the Commission

decides, in accordance with Rule 45, 3 (b), of its Rules of Procedure,

to give notice thereof to the Government of Austria and to invite it

to submit its observations on the question of admissibility;

Whereas, in the meanwhile, the Commission decides to adjourn its

examination of this part of the application;

Now therefore the Commission

1. DECLARES INADMISSIBLE; FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE THE COMPLAINT

RELATING TO THE APPLICANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE;

2. DECIDES TO ADJOURN ITS EXAMINATION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE

APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT OF ILL-TREATMENT IN PRISON