THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a Hungarian citizen, born in 1925 and at present

detained in Broadmoor Hospital.

From his statements and documents he submitted in support of his

application it appears that the applicant was charged on .. November

1966, in Nottingham, with having murdered Emily ... He was found guilty

by the Lincoln City Assizes and was sentenced to life imprisonment in

February 1967.

The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal,

Criminal Division. His appeal was considered first on .. May 1968. The

applicant's presence was permitted and he was in fact present. The

proceedings before the Appeal Court were adjourned in order that the

opportunity should be given to the applicant to prove his alibi by

going to Derbyshire to try to collect evidence that he was at the time

of the alleged crime actually breaking into a house in that area and

stealing the items which were found on him later. Although his

solicitor was supposed to be present, he did not accompany him and as

the applicant alleges, in Derbyshire he was not given any opportunity

to collect evidence. He states that in fact he was only taken to the

police station, detained there for a while and then returned to prison.

The appeal came before the Court of Appeal again on .. June 1968. The

applicant, although allegedly having permission to be present was

prevented from appearing before the Court. On that day the Court

decided that the appeal against conviction should be granted and has,

counsel consenting, treated the hearing as the appeal and has under

Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, substituted a verdict

of guilty of manslaughter for the verdict found by the jury and has

ordered that the sentence of life imprisonment shall stand.

The applicant complains that his lawyers failed to fulfil their duties,

in that they pleaded on the grounds of diminished responsibility and

did not seek to obtain complete acquittal as were the instructions of

the applicant. He further complains that contrary to the recognised

judicial practice, he was prevented from appearing before the Court of

Appeal.

Without referring to any specific Articles, the applicant alleges

generally a violation of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints concerning his

conviction and sentence, 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.

458/59 (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 not appearance of any such violation in the present case;

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, insofar as the applicant's complaints concerning his

conviction and sentence are directed against his lawyer, it results

from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention that the sole task of the

Commission is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken

in the Convention by the High Contracting Parties, being those members

of the Council of Europe which have signed the Convention and deposited

their instruments of ratification; whereas, moreover, it appears from

Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), of the Convention that the

Commission can properly admit an application from an individual only

if that individual claims to be the victim of a violation of his rights

under the Convention by one of the Parties which have accepted this

competence of the Commission;

Whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the Commission has

no competence ratione personae to admit applications directed against

private individuals; whereas it follows that this part of the

application is incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) (see Application No. 1599/62,

Yearbook, Vol. VI, pages 348, 356);

Whereas, insofar as the above complaint gives rise to the question

whether the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in London failed to

ensure that the applicant's defence was properly carried out with the

consequences that he was not given a fair hearing within the meaning

of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention, an

examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a

violation of this right; whereas it follows that, in this respect, 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 prevented

from appearing in person during the proceedings before the Court of

Appeal, the question arises whether the requirements of Article 6,

paragraphs (1) and (3) (c) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention were

complied with in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal; whereas

the right guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph (3) (Art. 6-3), are both

those of the accused and of the defence in general; and whereas, in

determining whether these rights have been respected, account must be

taken of the general situation of the defence and not of the position

of the accused;

Whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its decision on the

admissibility of 524/59 (Ofner against Austria, Yearbook of the

European Convention on Human Rights, Vol. 3, pages 322 [352]), also

Application No. 1394/62 (X. v. Austria); whereas it is not contested

that the applicant, although he himself was not present at the public

hearing of his appeal before the Court of Appeal, was represented by

Counsel; whereas in these circumstances the Commission finds that the

requirements of Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3) (c)

(Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention were complied with in the

proceedings before the Appeal Court, the principle of "equality of

arms" between the parties having been fully observed;

Whereas, therefore, an examination of the case as it has been submitted

does not disclose any violation of the Convention; 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;

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE