AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 29462/95

                      by Ernst REHBOCK

                      against Slovenia

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:

           MM    N. BRATZA, Acting President

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs   J. LIDDY

           MM    L. LOUCAIDES

                 B. MARXER

                 B. CONFORTI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs   M. HION

           Mr    R. NICOLINI

           Mrs   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 17 September 1995

by Ernst REHBOCK against Slovenia and registered on 6 December 1995

under file No. 29462/95;

     Having regard to:

-    the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

     the Commission;

-    the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

     9 April 1996 and supplemented on 21 May 1996 and the observations

     in reply submitted by the applicant on 1 and 29 January,

     28 February and 7 March 1997 ;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is a German national born in 1959.  He is an active

sportsman and resides in Landshut.  Before the Commission the applicant

is represented by Mr. H. Boog, a lawyer practising in Rostock.

     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

A.   The particular circumstances of the case

Treatment of the applicant during his arrest and detention

     On 8 September 1995 at about 2 p.m. the applicant crossed the

border between Austria and Slovenia near Sentilj.  In his car he had

a package of pills which an acquaintance of Slovenian origin had asked

him to bring to Slovenia.  He did not declare this fact to the customs

officers.  At 4.55 p.m. of the same day the applicant was arrested by

the Slovenian police in Dolic.

     According to the applicant's version of the facts, he found

himself threatened by several men who had a sawn-off shotgun and

pistols.  They were in plain clothes and wore no visible signs

indicating that they belonged to the police.  They attacked the

applicant without any prior warning.  He was held tight and made no

attempt to resist.  Despite his shouting in both German and English

that he was not resisting he was dragged brutally to the bonnet of a

car.  Two men held him tight and pushed the upper part of his body

against the bonnet and four other men kept hitting his head with

cudgels and fists.  His face was seriously injured and he suffered from

severe pains.

     According to the respondent Government, the applicant was

arrested in the context of an action which had been planned by the

competent authorities on the basis of their operational data.  When

constituting the arrest team the authorities bore in mind that the

applicant, whom they expected to be among the suspected drug dealers,

was extremely strong as he had won the German championship in body-

building on several occasions.

     The Government further submit that the applicant was arrested by

four police officers in duty anoraks visibly indicating that they

belonged to the police.  They were equipped with personal defence arms.

The officers warned the applicant that they belonged to the police and

asked him to keep still.  As he disobeyed their order and attempted to

resist his apprehension, the police officers had to restrain him by

means of physical force and handcuffs.  While they were taking a grip

on the applicant and pushed him to the ground, the applicant hit his

head on the bumper of a nearby car.

     After his arrest the applicant was detained by the police.  He

was suffering from headaches and had problems with his vision.  He was

threatened with beating and sworn at as "German Nazi swine".  Although

it was cold, he did not receive any covers.  No meals or drinks were

served to him nor did he receive toilet paper.  He was not allowed to

contact a lawyer and was obliged to sign a statement that he had

himself caused the injury and that he had not asked for a lawyer.

Subsequently the applicant was allowed to call his fiancée in Germany.

     The applicant was first examined by a doctor at the Maribor

General Hospital on 9 September 1995.  The report states that he was

brought to the hospital by the police and that his jaw was injured.

The applicant alleged to the doctor that he had been injured by the

police.  The latter stated that the applicant had hit the edge of a car

during his arrest.

      The doctor found that the applicant's temporomandibular joint

was sensitive to pressure and that he could not open his mouth

properly.  The report further indicates that the applicant's occlusion

was irregular as the teeth on the left side had been displaced.  The

doctor x-rayed the applicant and diagnosed a double fracture of the jaw

and facial contusions.

     The doctor concluded that a surgery under general anaesthesia was

necessary and made arrangements for it to be carried out the next day.

He allowed the police to keep the applicant in custody in the meantime.

     On 10 September 1995 the applicant was brought to the hospital

but he did not consent to the intervention as he considered that he

would be released soon and that he would undergo the operation in

Germany.  It was agreed that the applicant would be examined again on

12 September 1995.

     On 12 September 1995 the applicant was re-examined and stated

that he felt sick and that he had vomited.   He still did not consent

to the surgery recommended by the doctor.  The latter ordered that

pulpy food should be served to the applicant and that he should be

provided with sugar-free chewing-gum.  Another examination was fixed

for 18 September.

     The medical report of 18 September 1995 indicates that the

applicant felt better.  His pains were weaker but still present when

he was chewing and eating.  He could open his mouth only by some

fifteen to twenty millimetres.  The doctor recommended that the

applicant should be provided with pulpy food and chewing-gum.

     The next medical examination was scheduled for 25 September 1995

but it did not take place.  The applicant signed a statement, according

to him under pressure, that he did not wish to be examined in a

hospital.

     Further examinations at the Maribor General Hospital took place

on 3 October and on 25 and 27 November 1995.  The applicant admitted

a slight improvement of his problems with the jaw but complained of

pains in his abdomen and blood in his excrements.  He refused a rectal

examination.  His abdomen and urine were examined but no abnormalities

were found.  The doctors prescribed a special diet and, if need be, a

further examination.

     In a letter of 20 November 1995 to the prison governor the

applicant stated that he had unsuccessfully attempted, as from the very

first week of his detention, to contact him both in person and in

writing and to complain that he had not been allowed to contact the

German consul, that he had not been provided with pulpy food as

recommended by the doctors and that as a result he had suffered both

physically and morally.  He requested an appropriate examination in a

hospital.

     On 23 November 1995 the applicant complained in writing to the

prison governor that his jaw was aching.  On 26 and 28 November 1995

the applicant again asked the prison governor for an examination in

hospital.

     On 29 November 1995 the applicant received the medical documents

relating to his treatment.  Until then these documents had been

constantly refused him and the authorities had not accepted the

applicant's requests to give him the grounds for such refusal in

writing.

     On 4 December 1995 the applicant was examined again at the

Maribor General Hospital.  The report states that his occlusion was

damaged and that the applicant complained about pain in his jaw.

     On 7 December 1995 the applicant was treated in the hospital for

two superficial cuts on his left wrist which he had caused himself in

depression on 3 December 1995.

     In a letter of 17 December 1995 addressed to the Ministry of

Justice the applicant complained that he had been brutally beaten up

and that he had suffered a double fracture of his jaw.  He stated that

he had not been provided with appropriate medical care.  He claimed

damages of DEM 1,000,000.

     A further medical examination was carried out on 16 January 1996.

The applicant complained about pain in his left temporomandibular joint

and in his ears.  The doctor prescribed analgesics to the applicant and

noted that a specialist should be consulted as regards the treatment

of his jaw.

     On 23 January 1996 a specialist concluded that the applicant's

jaw required prothetic rehabilitation or even a surgery.  As the

applicant stated that he wished to undergo the treatment in Germany,

the doctor recommended that he should be sent there as soon as

possible.

     On 5 March 1996 the applicant complained to the prison governor

that he was suffering pains from an inflammation in his middle ear and

requested treatment in a hospital.

     On 7 March 1996 the applicant complained to a doctor about severe

pains in his head and that he had not been provided with appropriate

medical care in the prison.  In particular, he complained that the

medicaments prescribed to him had not been given to him regularly.

     In a letter of 9 June 1996 addressed to the German Embassy in

Slovenia the applicant complained that he had not been provided with

adequate food and medicaments prescribed by the doctors.  He also

stated that for this reason he had once refused to undergo a medical

examination.

     On 10 June 1996 the applicant complained to the Maribor prison

governor that on 8 and 9 June the guards had not provided him with

analgesics prescribed by the doctor and that, as a result, he was

suffering from severe pains and was depressed.

     On 20 June 1996 the applicant complained to the prison governor

that on 18 and 19 June he had not been provided with the medicaments

which had been prescribed to him.  On 30 June and 3 July 1996 he

complained again that medicaments had been refused to him.  In his

complaints the applicant stated that he wished to bring criminal

proceedings against the staff of the prison and requested that he

should be allowed to file a criminal complaint with the police.

     On 4 July 1996 the applicant complained to a judge of the Maribor

Higher Court that he suffered from severe pains and that pain killing

medicaments had been provided to him irregularly.

Decisions relating to the applicant's detention on remand

     After his arrest on 8 September 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully

requested that he should be allowed to talk to a lawyer.

     The applicant was brought before an investigating judge of the

Slovenj Gradec Regional Court (Okrozno sodisce) on 10 September 1995,

according to him at approximately 11 a.m., and according to the

respondent Government at 9 a.m.  It appears that it was on this

occasion that he was granted the assistance of a lawyer for the first

time.  The applicant was in a state of shock and had difficulties in

understanding the interpreter who did not speak German properly.

     On 10 September 1995 an investigating judge of the Slovenj Gradec

Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody as from the moment of

his arrest, i.e. 4.55 p.m. of 8 September 1995.  The judge noted that

the applicant was suspected of illegal production of and dealing in

narcotics and considered his detention necessary within the meaning of

Section 201 para. 2 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see

"The relevant domestic law" below).

     On 3 October 1995 the applicant lodged, through his lawyer, a

request for release.  He submitted that he would not abscond and

offered a security of DEM 50,000.  The applicant further claimed that

his detention was no longer necessary as all witnesses had already been

heard and all relevant evidence had been taken.

     On 6 October 1995 the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court extended the

applicant's detention on remand until 8 December 1995 pursuant to

Section 205 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The court noted

that the investigation into the applicant's case could not have been

completed within a month.  It further pointed out that the applicant

was reasonably suspected of criminal offences under Slovenian law.  As

he was a foreign national, there existed a risk that he could hinder

the investigation by absconding.  The court therefore held that his

further detention was necessary within the meaning of Section 201

para. 2 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20 of the

Constitution.

     The applicant lodged a complaint against the aforesaid decision.

He claimed that there existed no reason for his detention and that the

Regional Court had not decided on his request for release on bail of

3 October.

     On 19 October 1995 the Maribor Higher Court (Visje sodisce)

dismissed the applicant's complaint.  It noted that the applicant was

a foreign national who had no links in Slovenia.  It therefore held

that there existed the risk of his absconding.  The court further noted

that proceedings were pending, in the same context, against two other

persons and considered the applicant's detention necessary also in

order to ensure their proper conduct.  As to the applicant's request

for release on bail, the Higher Court held that it had to be first

decided upon by the Regional Court.

     On 26 October 1995 the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court dismissed

the applicant's request for release on bail of 3 October 1995.  The

court did not consider the security offered by the applicant as a

sufficient guarantee for his attending the proceedings before it.  The

court noted that the proceedings concerned also two other accused

persons and held that it would not be possible to conduct them properly

if the applicant absconded.

     On 27 November 1995 the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court extended

the applicant's detention on remand pursuant to Section 272 para. 2 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The court noted that on

24 November 1995 the Public Prosecutor's Regional Office in Slovenj

Gradec had indicted the applicant of smuggling and of unlawful

production of and dealing in narcotics.

     The court noted, with reference to the file concerning the

applicant's case, that there existed a strong suspicion that the

applicant had committed the offences imputed to him.  It further

pointed out that the applicant was a foreign national and considered

that the accusations brought against him could encourage him to

abscond.  The court considered the detention necessary also in order

to ensure proper conduct of the proceedings which involved two other

accused.  It referred to Section 201 para. 2 (1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and to Article 20 of the Constitution.

     On 13 December 1995 the Maribor Higher Court dismissed the

applicant's complaint against the aforesaid decision.  It considered,

with reference to the Regional Court's reasoning, that the applicant's

further detention was necessary within the meaning of Section 201

para. 2 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The Higher Court dealt

also with the applicant's argument that a witness had given evidence

that undermined the arguments of the prosecution.  The court held,

however, that it was for the criminal court examining the charges

against the applicant to assess such evidence.

     On 29 November 1995 the applicant lodged, through his lawyer,

another request for release.  He claimed that there existed no relevant

reasons for his detention and offered a security of DEM 50,000.

     On 22 December 1995 the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court dismissed

the aforesaid request.  The court considered that the reasons for the

applicant's detention, as established in the earlier decisions, still

existed.  The court noted that a witness had given evidence in the

applicant's favour.  It pointed out, however, that it was for the

chamber dealing with the case to assess such evidence and considered,

on the basis of the documents included in the file, that the applicant

could reasonably be suspected of having committed the offences imputed

to him.

     On 8 January 1996, after having convicted the applicant, the

Slovenj Gradec Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until

the moment when its judgment became final or, as the case might be,

until the expiry of the prison sentence imposed on him.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant

     On 21 September 1995 an investigating judge of the Slovenj Gradec

Regional Court decided, upon the request of the public prosecutor of

12 September 1995, to institute a criminal investigation into the

applicant's case.  The judge noted, on the basis of the information

available in the file, that the applicant was suspected of having

smuggled narcotics to Slovenia with a view to selling them and that

further investigation into the case was necessary.

     On 23 October 1995 an acquaintance of the applicant appeared, at

his own initiative, before the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court.  He

stated that he had asked the applicant to transport anabolic steroids

from Germany to Slovenia and that the applicant had not known that in

fact he had transported the substance referred to as "Ecstasy".

     On 24 November 1995 the Slovenj Gradec public prosecutor

indicted the applicant of unauthorised production of and dealing in

narcotics and of smuggling.  Charges were also brought against two

other persons.

     On 8 January 1996 the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court convicted the

applicant of the aforesaid offences pursuant to Sections 196 para. 1

and 255 para. 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year's

imprisonment.

     The Regional Court established that on 8 September 1995 at about

2 p.m. the applicant had illegally transported 6,066 pills of "Ecstasy"

and 581 other pills from Austria to Slovenia.  The court found, with

reference to two expert opinions, that the aforesaid pills contained

amphetamine and metylhendioxidmetamphetamine.  It established that both

substances were listed as narcotics in the Narcotics Regulation

No. 74/78 as amended by Regulation No. 10/87 of the former Socialist

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which had been incorporated in Slovenian

law by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitutional Act No. 1/91.  The

value of the smuggled goods amounted to DEM 102,000.

     The court further established that the applicant had been

actively involved in the sale of the aforesaid pills in that he had

transported them, from 7 September to the moment of his apprehension

on 8 September 1995 at 4.55 p.m., with a view to handing them over, for

reward, to another person.

     Before the court the applicant admitted that he had brought,

without an authorisation, pills which he had considered to be anabolic

steroids to Slovenia.  He claimed that illegal transporting of anabolic

steroids did not constitute an offence as they were not considered as

narcotics.  The applicant further admitted that he had been told that

he would receive DEM 66,000 for the pills including a reward of

DEM 5,000 for their transport.

     The applicant explained that he had agreed to transport the pills

at the request of an acquaintance of Slovenian origin.  He had hidden

them in his car as he had known that anabolic steroids could not be

imported freely.  He alleged that he had not known the amount of the

pills he had transported and their real nature.

     The Regional Court did not accept the applicant's arguments.  It

established that prior to 8 September 1995 the applicant and his

acquaintance had come to Slovenia where they had met with a person to

whom the applicant had been expected to hand over the pills.

     The court noted that the acquaintance who had asked the applicant

to transport the pills had confirmed that he had pretended to the

applicant that the pills were anabolic steroids and that the

applicant's meeting with a person to whom, in the court's view, the

pills had had to be handed over had been purely accidental.

     However, the Regional Court did not rely on the statements of the

aforesaid witness.  It held that he had given evidence against himself

and in favour of the applicant as he knew that no criminal proceedings

could be brought against him in Slovenia in this context.

     The applicant attended the hearing in person and was represented

by Rok Gerlovic, a lawyer practising in Maribor and Andrej Kac, a

trainee lawyer from Maribor.

     On 11 January 1996 the applicant requested Andrej Kac to lodge

a constitutional complaint on his behalf and to invoke Articles 3, 5,

6 and 7 of the Convention and also Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7.

The lawyer dissuaded the applicant from pursuing this remedy.

     On 24 January 1996 the applicant terminated his contract with

Boris Kac, a lawyer practising in Maribor, who had represented him,

together with Andrej Kac, since 18 September 1995.  In his letter the

applicant stated that he had financial problems and expressed his

gratitude for the lawyers' work.

     Subsequently the applicant was represented by Ljubo Kolbl, a

lawyer practising in Maribor.

     Both the public prosecutor and the applicant appealed against the

Regional Court's judgment of 8 January 1996.  The former claimed that

the sentence imposed on the applicant was too lenient.  The applicant

alleged that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts

correctly and that he had been convicted arbitrarily.  The applicant

also complained that the Regional Court had not applied the law

correctly in that its judgment was contradictory, that his actions

could not be qualified as an offence and that the substances

transported by him had not been considered as narcotics in Slovenian

law.

     On 29 April 1996 the Maribor Higher Court dismissed the

applicant's appeal as being manifestly ill-founded and, following the

public prosecutor's request, increased the applicant's sentence to

seventeen months' imprisonment.

     The Higher Court held that the first instance court had

established all relevant facts with sufficient certainty and had

applied the law correctly.  In particular, it found no relevant

contradictions in the Regional Court's judgment and held that the

latter had given a correct qualification of the applicant's actions

under Slovenian law.

     The Higher Court further recalled that the substances transported

by the applicant had been identified as amphetamine and

methylendioxidmetamphetamine by two forensic institutes independent of

each other and that the regulation of the former Socialist Federative

Republic of Yugoslavia qualifying these substances as narcotics had

been incorporated into Slovenian law by virtue of Article 4 of

Constitutional Act No. 1/91.

     In the proceedings before the Maribor Higher Court the applicant

was represented by his lawyer.  Upon the latter's advice the applicant

decided not to attend the hearing.

Interferences with the applicant's correspondence

     During his detention in Slovenia all applicant's correspondence

was monitored.  As a result, his letters were delivered with delays of

up to three or four weeks.

     The first letter of the Commission's Secretariat was sent to the

applicant on 27 October 1995.  It was handed to the applicant, open,

on 9 November 1995.  The second letter with the application form was

sent by urgent mail on 20 November and it was transmitted to the

applicant on 28 November 1995.

B.   Relevant domestic law

Constitutional provisions

     Article 19 of the Constitution provides as follows:

(translation)

     "The right of each individual to the liberty of person shall be

     guaranteed.

     Nobody may be deprived of his liberty except in cases and in

     accordance with the procedures prescribed by law.  Any person

     deprived of his liberty must be immediately informed, in his

     mother tongue or in a language which he understands, of the

     reasons for his arrest.

     Within the shortest possible time thereafter the arrested person

     shall be informed in writing of the reasons for his arrest.  Such

     a person shall be immediately informed that he is not obliged to

     make any statement, that he has the right to obtain immediately

     the assistance of a lawyer of his own choice and also that the

     authority responsible for his arrest is under the obligation to

     advise, upon his request, his family or his friends that he has

     been arrested."

     Article 20 of the Constitution provides, in so far as relevant,

as follows:

(translation)

     "A person reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal

     offence may be detained, but only by order of a court and only

     where such a detention is absolutely necessary for the proper

     conduct of criminal proceedings or for the protection of society.

     Within twenty-four hours after his arrest the person concerned

     shall be handed in writing the order of the court specifying the

     reasons for his detention..."

     Pursuant to Article 160 of the Constitution, the Constitutional

Court is empowered to decide, after the exhaustion of other available

remedies, on complaints concerning individual acts of public

authorities infringing human rights and fundamental freedoms.

     Under Article 162 of the Constitution any person having a legal

interest in doing so may initiate proceedings before the Constitutional

Court.

     Pursuant to Article 4 of Constitutional Act No. 1/91 on

Implementation of the Constitutional Charter on Independence of the

Republic of Slovenia, legal rules of the former Socialist Federative

Republic of Yugoslavia which do not contradict the Constitution and the

legal order of the Republic of Slovenia shall be applicable in the

latter until the adoption of new legislation.

Constitutional Court Act

     The proceedings before the Constitutional Court are governed by

the Constitutional Court Act (Zakon o Ustavnem sodiscu, Official

Gazette No. 15/94).

     Pursuant to Section 50 para. 1, any person considering that his

or her human rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated by an

individual act of a public authority may lodge a constitutional

complaint with the Constitutional Court.

     Under Section 51 the Constitutional Court may only deal with a

constitutional complaint after all other available remedies have been

exhausted.  However, the Constitutional Court may, exceptionally,

decide on a constitutional complaint prior to exhaustion of all

extraordinary remedies provided that the alleged violation of human

rights and fundamental freedoms is obvious and that the implementation

of the act complained of would cause irreparable damage to the person

concerned.

     Section 52 provides that a constitutional complaint shall be

filed within sixty days after the delivery of the act against which it

is permissible.  However, in exceptional cases the Constitutional Court

may decide to deal also with complaints introduced after the expiry of

the aforesaid time-limit.

     Under Section 59 para. 1, in cases where the Constitutional Court

has accepted a constitutional complaint it is entitled to quash, either

ex tunc or ex nunc, the act complained of and to send the case back to

the competent authority.

     Pursuant to Section 60 of the Constitutional Court Act, if the

Constitutional Court quashes an individual act ex tunc it may also

deliver a decision on the contested right or freedom if it is necessary

in order to eliminate the consequences of the act complained of or if

it is required by the nature of the right or freedom in question and

provided that the Constitutional Court can reach such a decision on the

basis of the information before it.  Such a decision of the

Constitutional Court shall be implemented by the public authority

concerned.

Criminal Code

     Section 196 para. 1 of the Criminal Code provides that anyone

who, without authorisation, produces, alters, sells or offers for sale,

buys with a view to selling, keeps or carries or serves as an

intermediary in the sale and purchase, or in any other way engages in

unauthorised circulation of substances classified as narcotics is

punishable with a prison sentence from one to ten years.

     Pursuant to Section 255 para. 1 of the Criminal Code, anyone who

transports goods of substantial value across the border and avoids

customs control, or transfers such goods as a member of a group, while

being armed or with the use or threat of force is punishable with a

fine or imprisonment up to three years.

Code of Criminal Procedure

     Pursuant to Section 201 para. 2 (1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, a person reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal

offence may be remanded in custody when he or she is hiding, when his

or her identity cannot be established or when the particular

circumstances of the case indicate that there is a danger of his or her

absconding.

     Pursuant to para. 2 (2) of the same Section, a person can be

remanded in custody if there is a serious risk that he or she would

destroy the traces of an offence or obstruct the proceedings by

exercising undue influence on the witnesses or other persons involved

in the proceedings.

     Section 205 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides

that an investigating judge may remand an accused person in custody for

no longer than a month from the moment when he or she was arrested.

After the expiry of this period a person may be detained only upon the

basis of a decision to extend his or her detention.

     Under para. 2 of the same Section, such a decision shall be

delivered by a court's chamber and the accused person's detention may

thereby be extended for no longer than two months.

     Section 211 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides

that a detainee may correspond or establish other contacts with persons

outside the prison with the consent and under the supervision of the

investigating judge dealing with his or her case.  The latter may

prohibit the detainee to send or receive letters or having other

contacts when they could affect the criminal proceedings pending

against him or her.  However, it is not permissible to prevent a

detained person from sending applications or appeals.

     Pursuant to para. 4 of the aforesaid Section, during the period

between the filing of indictment and the moment when a judgment becomes

final the control of a detained person's correspondence shall be

exercised by the president of a court's chamber.

     In accordance with Section 272 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, when an indictment is filed against a person detained on

remand and provided that it does not contain a proposal that such a

person should be released, a court's chamber shall examine ex officio,

within three days after the filing of the indictment, whether relevant

reasons for a further detention of the accused exist and issue a

decision by which either the detention on remand is extended or the

person concerned is released.

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about

the treatment to which he was subjected during his arrest and his

subsequent detention by the Slovenian authorities.  In particular, he

complains that the police officers arresting him fractured his jaw,

that he was subjected to degrading treatment while being detained by

the police, that he was not granted appropriate medical treatment and

that the prison staff did not provide him regularly with adequate food

and medicaments as ordered by the doctors.

     The applicant further complains that his detention was unlawful,

that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest, that

he was brought before a judge with a considerable delay after his

arrest and that he could not, especially at the initial stage of his

detention, take proceedings with a view to having the lawfulness of his

detention examined speedily by a court.  He alleges a violation of

Article 5 paras. 1 (c), 2 and 5 of the Convention.

     The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention

that all his correspondence was monitored by the Slovenian authorities

and transmitted with considerable delays.

     Finally, the applicant complains about the criminal proceedings

leading to his conviction.  In particular, he alleges that at the

preliminary stage of the proceedings he did not benefit from the

guarantees set out in Article 6 para. 3 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the

Convention and that the courts dealing with his case failed to

establish the facts correctly and decided arbitrarily.  He further

complains under Article 7 of the Convention that his actions did not

constitute a criminal offence.  He alleges also a violation of

Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7 in the context of the criminal

proceedings against him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The application was introduced on 17 September 1995 and

registered on 6 December 1995.

     On 18 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and to invite the latter to

submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.  The

Commission invited the Government to deal in their observations, in

particular, with questions under Article 3, Article 5 paras. 3 and 4

as well as Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.  As regards the

applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, the

Commission invited the Government to state their opinion as to whether

the applicant had had any effective remedies at his disposal.

     The Government's written observations were submitted on

9 April 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose.  On 25 April 1996 the President of the First Chamber set, at

the Government's request, a new time-limit for supplementing the

observations.  The Government's supplementary observations were

submitted on 21 May 1996.   The applicant replied on 1 and 29 January,

28 February and 7 March 1997, after two extensions of the time-limit.

     On 16 April 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains about the treatment to which he was

subjected during his arrest and subsequent detention by the Slovenian

authorities.  He alleges a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention which provides as follows:

     "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading

     treatment or punishment."

     The Commission first recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention it may only deal with a matter after all domestic

remedies have been exhausted.  It is the normal practice of the

Commission, where a case has been communicated to the respondent

Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to

exhaust domestic remedies, unless this matter has been raised by the

Government in their observations (see No. 22947/93 and No. 22948/93,

Dec. 11.10.94, D.R. 79-A, p. 108).

     The Commission notes that on 18 January 1996 it decided to

communicate the applicant's complaints under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention and invited the parties to submit observations as to whether

the applicant had had any effective remedies at his disposal.

     In their observations the respondent Government made no comments

concerning the applicant's compliance with the requirement as to the

exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention.  In these circumstances, the Commission considers that

this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of

domestic remedies.

     As to the merits, the respondent Government submit that the

applicant was arrested by four officials with visible external signs

indicating that they belonged to the police.  As the applicant did not

react to their oral warnings and attempted to resist his apprehension,

the officers were obliged to have recourse to mild means of constraint.

While he was being restrained and pushed to the ground, the applicant

hurt his head against the bumper of a nearby car.  The Government

further submit that the use of force while arresting the applicant was,

irrespective of its consequences, legitimate and conformed to the

relevant provisions of Slovenian law.

     The applicant contests the Government's version of the facts.

He contends that the police officers were in plain clothes and

threatened him with a sawn-off shotgun and pistols.  He was held tight

by two persons and four other persons kept hitting his head with

cudgels and fists notwithstanding that he shouted both in German and

English that he was not resisting.

     The applicant further maintains that after his arrest he was

brought to a police station and transported to a hospital only after

a considerable delay.  His jaw was seriously injured and he suffered

from headaches and had problems with his vision.   During his detention

at the police station he was threatened with beating and sworn at as

"German Nazi swine".  Although it was cold, he did not receive any

covers.  No meals or drinks were served to him nor did he receive

toilet paper.  He could not contact a lawyer and was obliged to sign

a statement that he had caused himself the injury.

     Finally, the applicant submits that the medical care granted to

him in Slovenia was inappropriate and that the prison staff repeatedly

failed to provide him with adequate food and medicaments which the

doctors had prescribed to him.

     The Commission considers that the applicant's above complaints

raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention the

determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits.

It follows that this part of the application cannot be dismissed as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.  No other ground for declaring it

inadmissible has been established.

2.   The applicant further complains about his detention in Slovenia.

He alleges a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 (c), 2 and 5

(Art. 5-1-c, 5-2, 5-5) of the Convention.

a)   To the extent that the applicant complains that his detention was

unlawful, that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his

arrest and that he was not compensated for his detention, the

Commission notes that it does not appear from the documents submitted

that the applicant raised these issues in his complaints addressed to

the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court and the Maribor Higher Court.

Furthermore, the applicant has not, ultimately, filed a constitutional

complaint before the Constitutional Court.

     The Commission notes that the applicant was evidently aware of

the existence of a remedy before the Constitutional Court as on

11 January 1996 he requested the lawyer who then represented him to

lodge a constitutional complaint on his behalf relying on the

complaints submitted in the present application.  It is true that the

lawyer dissuaded the applicant from pursuing such a remedy.  However,

in this respect the Commission recalls that a lawyer does not engage

the responsibility of the State under the Convention (see No. 9022/80,

Dec. 13.7.83, D.R. 33, p. 21).

     Furthermore, after 24 January 1996 the applicant was represented

by another lawyer of his own choice and it does not appear from the

documents submitted that he sought to obtain redress in this respect

either through his intermediary or in person.

     In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the

applicant has not complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion

of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention.

     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

b)   The applicant further complains that after his arrest he was not

brought promptly before a judge.  The Commission has examined this

complaint under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention which

provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

     "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions

     of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly

     before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise

     judicial power..."

     The Commission first notes that this part of the application was

communicated to the respondent Government.  Since the latter failed to

address the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in this

respect, the Commission considers that this part of the application

cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see para. 1

above).

     As to the merits, the respondent Government submit that the

applicant was arrested on 8 September 1995 at 4.55 p.m. and brought

before a judge on 10 September 1995 at 9 a.m.

     The applicant contends that he was brought before a judge on

10 September 1995 at about 11 a.m.

     The Commission finds, on the basis of the parties' submissions,

that the applicant was brought before a judge no longer than forty-two

hours after his arrest.  In the Commission's view, this period is in

keeping with the requirement of promptness laid down in Article 5

para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (see, e.g., No. 11256/84, Dec.

5.9.88, D.R. 57, pp. 47, 70, with further references).

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

c)   The applicant also complains that he was not able to take

proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention would be decided

speedily.  The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 5

paras. 4 and 5 (Art. 5-4, 5-5) of the Convention which provide as

follows:

     "4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or

     detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the

     lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court

     and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

     5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in

     contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an

     enforceable right to compensation."

     The Commission first notes that this part of the application was

communicated, under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention, to

the respondent Government.  Since the latter failed to address the

question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in this respect, the

Commission considers that this part of the application cannot be

rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see para. 1 above).

     The respondent Government submitted no observations as regards

the merits of this part of the application.

     The applicant alleges that at the initial stage of his detention

on remand he was not able to have the lawfulness of his detention

reviewed speedily by a court.  In the proceedings before the Slovenian

authorities he also complained that the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court

had not decided on his request for release of 3 October 1995 speedily.

     The Commission notes that the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court

decided on the applicant's request for release of 3 October on

26 October 1995.  On 29 November 1995 the applicant lodged another

request for release and the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court decided on

it on 22 December 1995.

     The Commission considers that the above complaints raise serious

issues of fact and law under the Convention the determination of which

should depend on an examination of the merits.  It follows that this

part of the application cannot be dismissed as being manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.  No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been

established.

3.   The applicant complains that while he was detained the Slovenian

authorities monitored his correspondence including the letters sent to

him by the European Commission of Human Rights and that his letters

were delivered with considerable delays.  He alleges a violation of

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which provides, so far as

relevant, as follows:

     "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... correspondence.

     2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

     exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the

     law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

     national security, public safety or the economic well-being of

     the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

     protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the

     rights and freedoms of others."

     The Commission first notes that on 18 January 1996 it decided to

invite the parties to submit observations as regards the applicant's

complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

     In their observations the respondent Government made no comments

concerning the applicant's compliance with the requirement as to the

exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention.  In these circumstances, the Commission considers that

this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of

domestic remedies (see para. 1 above).

     As to the merits, the respondent Government submit that the

applicant's correspondence was monitored by an investigating judge

pursuant to Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  They

further point out that the delays in handing the letters to the

applicant were due to the fact that during the preliminary stage and

at first instance his case was dealt with by the Slovenj Gradec

Regional Court whereas he was detained in the Maribor prison.

     The applicant contends that his letters were regularly opened and

handed to him with delays amounting to three or four weeks.  He submits

that it was therefore not possible for him to carry out a free and

unhindered exchange of ideas by correspondence and that this

interference had no reasonable justification.

     The Commission considers that the applicant's above complaint

raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention the

determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits.

It follows that this part of the application cannot be dismissed as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.  No other ground for declaring it

inadmissible has been established.

4.   The Commission has examined, ex officio, the applicant's

complaint about the interference with his correspondence with the

Commission also under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention

which provides as follows:

     "The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary

     General of the Council of Europe from any person, non-

     governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be

     the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties

     of the rights set forth in this Convention, provided that the

     High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been

     lodged has declared that it recognises the competence of the

     Commission to receive such petitions.  Those of the High

     Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration undertake

     not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."

     The Commission notes that the first letter of the Commission's

Secretariat was sent to the applicant on 27 October 1995.  It was

handed to the applicant, open, on 9 November 1995.  The second letter

with the application form was sent by urgent mail on 20 November and

it was transmitted to the applicant on 28 November 1995.

     The Commission has before it no indication that the aforesaid

letters or any other letters between the Commission and the applicant

were tampered with.  Furthermore, and even assuming that there were

delays attributable to the Slovenian authorities in handing the

aforesaid letters to the applicant, the Commission has no evidence

before it that the applicant suffered any prejudice in regard to the

presentation of his application to the Commission or that he was in any

way frustrated in the exercise of his right of individual petition (see

Campbell v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 12.7.90, paras. 73-76,

Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 233, p. 41; the Court, in its judgment of

25 March 1992, made no finding as to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the

Convention; p. 23, para. 66).

     The Commission therefore considers that no further action need

be taken in respect of compliance with the applicant's right under

Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention.

5.   The applicant further complains about the criminal proceedings

leading to his conviction.  He alleges a violation of Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as

follows:

     "1.   In the determination of ... any criminal charge against

     him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

     independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

     ...

     3.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

     minimum rights:

           a.    to be informed promptly, in a language which he

     understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the

     accusation against him;

           b.    to have adequate time and facilities for the

     preparation of his defence;

           c.    to defend himself in person or through legal

     assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means

     to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the

     interests of justice so require;

     ...

           e.    to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he

     cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

a)   To the extent that the applicant complains that the courts

evaluated the evidence in his case erroneously and convicted him

arbitrarily, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article

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

observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the

Convention.  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 it considers that such errors might have

involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out

in the Convention.  The Commission refers, on this point, to its

constant case-law (see, e.g., No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83, pp.

77, 86).

     In the present case the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court examined

the evidence before it and came to the conclusion, for reasons

expressly set out in its judgment, that the applicant had committed the

offences of which he had been indicted.

     Subsequently, the Maribor Higher Court found that the first

instance court had established all relevant facts with sufficient

certainty and had applied the law correctly.  In particular, it found

no relevant contradictions in the Regional Court's judgment and held

that the latter had given a correct qualification of the applicant's

acting under Slovenian law.  Both courts dealt also with the

applicant's defence and in their judgments they set out the reasons for

which they refused to accept it.

     The Commission considers that the reasons on which the courts

based their above decisions are sufficient to exclude that the

evaluation of the evidence in the applicant's case had been arbitrary.

b)   To the extent that the applicant complains that at the

preliminary stage of the criminal proceedings his rights under

Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) were not respected, the Commission

recalls that the question whether a trial is in conformity with the

requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) must be considered on the basis of

an examination of the proceedings as a whole and not one isolated

aspect (see No. 11069/84, Dec. 17.9.89, D.R. 62, pp. 5, 19).

     The Commission notes that in the proceedings before the Regional

Court, which he attended in person, the applicant was assisted by a

lawyer and a trainee-lawyer.  The applicant decided not to attend the

hearing before the Higher Court upon the advice of his lawyer, and the

latter represented him in the proceedings at second instance.

     Thus in the course of the judicial proceedings concerning his

case the applicant could defend himself either in person or through his

lawyer, and the Commission has before it no information that would

indicate that the Slovenian authorities restricted the exercise of his

right to defend himself in a way which is incompatible with

Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention.

c)   As regards the applicant's complaints under Article 6

para. 3 (a), (b) and (e) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b, 6-3-e) of the Convention,

the Commission notes that it does not appear from the documents

submitted that the applicant raised these issues in the proceedings

before the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court and, subsequently, in his

appeal to the Maribor Higher Court.  In this respect he has not,

therefore, complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of

domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention.

     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

under Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention.

6.   Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 7 (Art. 7)

of the Convention and of Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7

(P7-2, P7-3) in the context of the criminal proceedings leading to his

conviction.  The aforesaid provisions read, so far as relevant, as

follows:

                 Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention

     "1.   No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on

     account of any act or omission which did not constitute a

     criminal offence under national or international law at the time

     when it was committed.  Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed

     than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence

     was committed."

     ...

           Protocol No. 7, Article 2 P7-2) of the Convention

     "1.   Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal

     shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed

     by a higher tribunal.  The exercise of this right, including the

     grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law."

     ...

          Protocol No. 7, Article 3 (P7-3) of the Convention

     "When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a

     criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been

     reversed, or he has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or

     newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a

     miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment

     as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to

     the law or the practice of the State concerned, unless it is

     proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is

     wholly or partly attributable to him."

a)   To the extent that the applicant alleges a violation of Article 7

(Art. 7) of the Convention in that his actions did not amount to a

criminal offence, the Commission recalls that the applicant was

convicted of unauthorised production of and dealing with narcotics and

of smuggling pursuant to Sections 196 para. 1 and 255 para. 1 of the

Criminal Code as in force at the relevant time.  Furthermore, the

Commission has before it no information that would indicate that the

Slovenian courts exceeded the limits of a reasonable interpretation of

these provisions (see No. 9870/82, Dec. 13.10.83, D.R. 34, pp. 208,

211).

b)   As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 2 of Protocol

No. 7 (P7-2), the Commission notes that the applicant had the

possibility of having the judgment of the Slovenj Gradec Regional Court

of 8 January 1996 reviewed by a court of second instance, namely the

Maribor Higher Court.

     In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the

requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-2) have been complied

with.

c)   To the extent that the applicant alleges a violation of Article 3

of Protocol No. 7 (P7-3), the Commission recalls that the right to a

compensation guaranteed by it covers exclusively cases when a final

conviction of a criminal offence has been reversed or if a person

convicted of a criminal offence has been pardoned on the ground that

a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been

a miscarriage of justice.

     However, in the present case the judgments by which the applicant

was convicted and sentenced to a prison sentence are binding.

Accordingly, the applicant cannot claim compensation for his conviction

under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-3).

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the

     applicant's complaints that he was subjected to treatment

     incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, that he was not

     able to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention

     would be decided speedily as required by Article 5 para. 4 of the

     Convention, that his right to a compensation in this respect as

     guaranteed by Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention was not

     respected, and that his correspondence was interfered with

     contrary to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention;

     DECIDES NOT TO PURSUE the examination of whether the applicant's

     right under Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention was interfered

     with;

     DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                              N. BRATZA

        Secretary                              Acting President

   to the First Chamber                      of the First Chamber