THE FACTS

Whereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may be

summarised as follows:

The Applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1931 and at present detained

in prison in Copenhagen.  He is represented before the Commission by

Mr. C, a barrister practising in Copenhagen.

The Applicant was charged before the High Court of Eastern Denmark

(Østre Landsret) with rape committed on two occasions in 1963, and,

according to the procedure applicable, a jury was set up to determine

the question of his guilt.

During the proceedings before the Court on ... 1964, the Applicant's

counsel requested that an account of the Applicant's previous

convictions should not be given to the Court until the jury had reached

its decision as to his guilt in the present case.  This request was

rejected by the Court which, in its decision on this point, referred

to Article 877 of the Code of Procedure (retsplejeloven) which

expressly provides that records of previous convictions may be used as

evidence during proceedings before the High Court.

Following this decision of the Court, the Public Prosecutor gave an

account of the Applicant's numerous previous convictions;  in

particular, on one occasion in 1956, he had already been convicted of

rape and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

On ... 1964, the jury found that the Applicant was guilty of the

offenses charged and on the same day the High Court, considering that

the Applicant would not be susceptible to the effects of a penal

sentence, decided to place him in a special detention centre (saerlig

forvaringsanstalt) as provided for in Article 70 of the Penal Code.

The Applicant appealed against the decision of the High Court,

requesting primarily that the case be returned to the High Court for

a new examination and, alternatively, that he be sentenced to detention

for a fixed period of time.  He maintained in his appeal that

information about his criminal record ought not to have been given

before the jury had decided upon the question of his guilt and that,

moreover, it could be assumed that he would not have been found guilty,

if his previous convictions had not been known to the jury.  He alleged

that the procedure followed did not meet the requirements for a fair

trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.

On ... 1965, the Supreme Court (Højesteret) rejected his appeal. In its

decision, the Supreme Court stated that information about previous

convictions had been given in accordance with Article 877 of the Code

of Procedure and that, moreover, the detention of the Applicant in a

special detention centre as provided for in Article 70 of the Penal

Code was justified.

The Applicant now complains:

(1) that the Public Prosecutor was allowed to inform the jury of his

previous convictions, not only in general terms but in considerable

detail; and

(2) that he has been sentenced to detention for an indefinite period

of time. He alleges violations of Articles 3, 4 paragraph (1), 6,

paragraphs (1) and (2), of the Convention and requests a new trial

before an unbiased jury and the annulment of his sentence of detention

for an unlimited period.

THE LAW

Whereas, as regards the complaint that the jury was informed of the

Applicant's previous convictions before determining the issue of his

guilt in respect of two charges of rape, the Commission considers that

the Application gives rise to questions of the interpretation of

Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (2) (Art. 6-1, 6-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, when interpreting such fundamental concepts as "fair hearing"

within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), and

"presumption of innocence" within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph

(2) (Art. 6-2), the Commission finds it necessary to take into

consideration the practice in different countries which are members of

the Council of Europe; whereas it is clear that in a number of these

countries information as to previous convictions is regularly given

during the trial before the court has reached a decision as to the

guilt of an accused; whereas the Commission is not prepared to consider

such a procedure as violating any provision of Article 6 (Art. 6) of

the Convention, not even in cases where a jury is to decide on the

guilt of an accused;

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, as regards the Applicant's complaint that he was sentenced

to detention for an indefinite time, it is to be considered whether

the Applicant's detention is contrary to Article 5, paragraph (1) (a)

(Art. 5-1-a), of the Convention which deals with the lawful detention

of a person after conviction by a competent court";

Whereas detention in a special detention centre, as provided for in

Article 70 of the Penal Code, is a measure which, in the interests

of public safety, is applied to persons with certain mental defects;

Whereas, at certain intervals, the detention may be re-examined by

a court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, the director of the

institution concerned or the supervising guardian;

Whereas the Commission has previously been called upon to consider

whether other similar measures involving detention for an indefinite

period are contrary to Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a);

Whereas, in these cases, the Commission has concluded that the

Convention (see for instance, in regard to the German

"Sicherungsverwahrung", the Commission's decision regarding Application

No. 99/55 X. against the Federal Republic of Germany, Annuaire I, page

160);

Whereas, having regard to the nature of the measure complained of and

to the Commission's previous jurisprudence in regard to similar

measures, the Commission does not find any appearance of violation of

the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and, in particular,

in Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a); whereas it follows that

this part of the Application is also 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.