THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1908, and resident in

Berlin.

From her statements and from documents submitted by her, it appears

that in 1958 her son was arrested in Berlin under suspicion of having

committed criminal offenses. The applicant maintains that her son has

been beaten by police officers while being interrogated at the police

station and suffered injuries from which he never fully recovered. She

states that on .. May, 1958, she laid with the police criminal charges

against persons unknown for having committed grievous bodily harm in

the execution of official functions (schwere Körperverletzung im Amt).

According to the applicant, no action was taken with regard to her

charges.

She states that, on .. February, 1959, she examined the police diary

on the .. Police Station in Berlin, and subsequently repeated the

charges laid by her, addressing herself this time to the

Attorney-General's Office (Generalstaatsanwalt). She now also charged

the police officer concerned with having falsified documents. According

to the applicant, again no action was taken with regard to these

charges. She states that, on .. June, 1961, she complained of such

inaction to the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) and was informed

on .. May, 1962, by the Police Prosecutor's Office that the

investigations had been resumed. It appears that on .. August, 1962,

they were discontinued.

Subsequently, proceedings for having made false accusations (falsche

Anschuldigung) were instituted against the applicant. It appears that

on .. October, 1964, she was put on trial before the District Court

(Schöffengericht) of Berlin-Tiergarten, but the case was adjourned, the

Court having made an order for the applicant's psychiatric examination.

She states that the consistently refused this examination which she

considered as being degrading.

According to the applicant, the trial continued on .. January, 1967.

The applicant was convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment,

but her sentence was suspended. It appears that the applicant appealed

(Berufung) against this judgment to the Berlin Regional Court

(Landgericht) but her appeal was rejected on .. July, 1967. Her further

appeal (Revision) was dismissed as being clearly ill-founded on ..

January, 1968. This decision was communicated to her on .. January,

1968.The applicant further states that, on .. January, 1967, she was also

convicted by the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten for making

insulting remarks (Beleidigung) and sentenced to a fine of DM 300. It

appears that these proceedings were the result of remarks which the

applicant had made about District Judge F., following civil proceedings

for damages against her son. According to the indictment of ..

February, 1965, the applicant had stated in writing that Judge F. had

committed official favouritism (Begünstigung im Amt) and had aided and

abetted fraud (Beihilfe zum Betrug). The applicant does not give any

further particular with regard to these proceedings against her.

She now alleges the following violations of the Convention:

1. Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (2) in that certain official files

allegedly contained a note by the Berlin Chief of Police to the effect

that rigorous measures should be taken against the N. family. This

remark showed that she was not presumed innocent until proved guilty

according to law and that the courts had been biased against her.

2. Article 6, paragraph 3 (b), in that, on .. January, 1967, she was

tried for having made insulting remarks without having been notified

or without having received the decision to open trial

(Eröffnungsbeschluss) with regard to that charge. Consequently, she had

not been able adequately to prepare her defence in that case.

3. Article 6, paragraph 3 (d) in that important evidence in her favour

had not been examined by the courts. In this respect, she states that

she had repeatedly requested the courts to examine her letters which

she had written to her son while he was in prison and which had been

confiscated, a certain police record which would clarify her charges

of falsification of documents, all pleadings and motions submitted by

her son's defence counsel during the criminal proceedings against her

son and three police diaries kept at the .... Police Station. On all

occasions, the courts had failed to examine the evidence.

The applicant also seems to complain that the proceedings against her

have taken a considerable length of time and that the police allegedly

had published in the press a full account of her conviction, charging

her with the costs of that publication.

THE LAW

Whereas, with regard to the applicant's complaint concerning her

conviction and sentence by the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten for

making false accusations, it is to be observed that, under Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter

"within a period of six months from the date on which the final

decision was taken"; and whereas the decision of the Berlin Court of

Appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of this

complaint, was given on .. January, 1968; whereas the present

application was not submitted to the Commission until 5th August, 1968,

that is, more than six months after the date of this decision; whereas,

furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence

of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended

the running of that period; whereas it follows that this part of the

application has been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27, paragraph

(3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention);

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints concerning her further

conviction and sentence by the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten for

making insulting remarks, it is to be observed that, under Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter

after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the

generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the

applicant failed to show that she appealed against the said District

Court's decision of .. January, 1967; whereas, therefore, she has not

exhausted the remedies available to her under German law; whereas,

moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,

including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the

applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international

law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at her disposal; whereas,

therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid

down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the

Convention has not been complied with by the applicant;

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

prosecuting authorities refused to take any action on the charges laid

by her and prosecute certain police officers, 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, paragraph (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 no right to have criminal

proceedings instituted against police officers and private individuals

is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention;

Whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its constant

jurisprudence, e.g. Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook, Vol. VI, pages

348, 354;

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), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE