THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1919 and, when lodging

his application, he was detained in prison at G., in Austria.

On .. December 1968 the Regional Court (Landesgericht) of G. convicted

the applicant of attempted indecent assault and of the minor offense

of indecent behaviour (Verbrechen der versuchten Schändung und

Schamhaftigkeit) and gave him a 15 months' prison sentence. The

applicant was found guilty of having attempted to abuse two girls aged

10 and 11 years old and of having later exposed his private parts to

other young girls. The applicant had confessed to the second offence

but denied the attempted abuse of the two girls. The Court based its

decision on the statements of the girls whose credibility was carefully

considered.

The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court

(Oberster Gerichtshof). He attacked the credibility of the statements

of the two girls on which the Court had based its judgment. He further

maintained that he had simply shown them his private parts and that

this constituted only the minor offense of indecent behaviour.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal by a judgment of ..

April 1969 the text of which was communicated to the applicant on 13

May 1969. The Court held that the credibility of the girls was beyond

doubt and that the Regional Court had given sufficient and convincing

reasons for the applicant's conviction. The Court also held that the

penalty was justified since the applicant had been previously convicted

of a similar offense.

The applicant subsequently served his sentence in the prison at G.

Apparently he requested on several occasions to be released before

serving his total sentence. He alleged that his general condition of

health was bad and that he suffered from a heart disease. However,

these requests were not successful.

The applicant now complains:

- that he was innocent and that he had been wrongly convicted of

  attempted indecent assault since his acts only constituted a minor

  offense;

- that he has been discriminated against since other persons who

  committed similar offenses did not receive such a heavy penalty;

- that his requests for release from prison before the end of his

  sentence were not successful despite the fact that he had a heart

  disease which made him incapable of serving a prison sentence.

The applicant alleges violations of Articles 6, 7 and 14 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas the applicant first complains that he was innocent and that he

was wrongly convicted of attempted indecent assault, since his acts

only constituted a minor offence only; whereas an examination of the

case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and

especially in Articles 6 and 7 (Art. 6, 7) thereof;

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.

458/59 (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 the applicant further complains generally, as regards the

alleged discrimination, that he has been the victim of discrimination

since other persons, who committed similar offenses, were not given

such a heavy penalty as he had received; whereas, the Commission first

finds that the right to a particular penalty is not, as such, included

among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention,

Whereas, however, it has considered this complaint under the provisions

of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) read in conjunction with

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention; whereas it is to be recalled

that the European Court of Human Rights found that the guarantee of

Article 14 (Art. 14) "has no independent existence in the sense that,

under the terms of Article 14 (Art. 14), it relates solely to rights

and freedoms set forth in the Convention, nevertheless a measure, which

in itself is in conformity with the requirements of the Article

enshrining the right or freedom in question, may however infringe this

Article when read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) for the

reason that it is of a discriminatory nature" (see European Court of

Human Rights Case "relating to certain aspects of the law on the use

of languages in education in Belgium (merits), judgment of 23 July

1968, p. 33) and later stated that "the principle of equality of

treatment is violated if the distinction has no objective and

reasonable justification" (p. 34);

Whereas, the Commission observes that the length of a sentence given

for a criminal offense depends on the particular facts of each case and

on the character and record of the offender;

Whereas these elements, which obviously vary in different cases,

justify and indeed make inevitable, different treatment of the

different persons concerned;

Whereas, the Court had before it the particular elements of the present

case which included the circumstances of the offenses committed and the

record of the applicant who had been convicted previously of a similar

offense; whereas the Commission finds that a decision, as regards

length of sentence, based on such elements has an objective and

reasonable justification and does not therefore violate its principle

of equality of treatment;

Whereas, in the present case the applicant has not shown that the Court

did not have regard, when fixing his sentence, to the particular

elements of his case mentioned above;

Whereas, the Commission therefore finds that there is no appearance of

discrimination against the applicant in this respect and thus no

violation of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the

Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14); whereas it

follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27, paragraph (2)

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

Whereas the applicant also complains that he was not given adequate

medical treatment in prison; whereas the Commission has examined this

complaint in relation to Article 3 and Article 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the

Convention;

Whereas, however, it finds that an examination of the case at the

present state of the file, including an examination ex officio, does

not disclose any appearance of a violation of the above Articles;

Whereas also this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded;

Whereas, finally, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the

Austrian authorities refused to release him conditionally from prison

it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article

1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in

Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25 (1)

(Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of those rights and

freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an application

presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of

individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the

Commission ratione materiae; whereas the right to a conditional release

from prison is not as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission

refers to its previous decision No. 1421/62 of 19 June 1963; whereas

it follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the

provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,

paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2)

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE