Search
document

Document text Analytics

KNIGHT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 39387/98 • ECHR ID: 001-4176

Document date: March 13, 1998

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

KNIGHT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 39387/98 • ECHR ID: 001-4176

Document date: March 13, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 39387/98

by Paul KNIGHT

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 March 1998, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, Acting President

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

Mr M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 June 1996 by

Paul KNIGHT against the United Kingdom and registered on 16 January

1998 under file No. 39387/98;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1961 and is currently

resident in Bowdenhouse clinic, Middlesex. The facts as submitted by

the applicant, and as may be deduced from the documents submitted by

him, may be summarised as follows.

In or about 1989, the applicant was convicted of assault and

sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which concluded by 1991. From this

time, he began to complain of massive brain torture and suffering,

including persecution from voices in the atmosphere and the melting of

his face by rays.

The applicant's attempts to obtain legal representation to pursue

proceedings claiming damages for torture failed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant invokes principally Article 3 in relation to the

torture which he alleges that he suffers eg. mind reading, brain

torture, facial burning and facial melting. He has also invoked

Articles 2, 5 paras. 1 and 5, 8, 9 and 12. He states that his

imprisonment from 1989 to 1991 was unjustified.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that he has been subjected to torture,

including mind reading, facial burning and facial melting. He invokes,

principally, Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which prohibits

torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, as well as

Articles 2 (Art. 2) (the right to life), 5 paras. 1 (5-1) (the right

to liberty and security of person) and 5 (the right to compensation for

arrest or detention in violation of the other provisions of Article 5

(Art. 5)), 8 (Art. 8) (right to respect for private life), 9 ((Art. 9)

freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 12 (Art. 12) (the

right to marry) of the Convention.

1. Insofar as the applicant complains of the lack of justification

for his imprisonment from 1989 to 1991, the Commission recalls that

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may

only deal with a complaint where domestic remedies have been exhausted

and where the complaint has been introduced within six months of the

final decision taken in respect of that matter. The Commission notes

that it is not apparent whether the applicant instituted any appeal

against his conviction or sentence. However, even assuming that he had

exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention, the Commission would be unable to examine his complaints

in this respect since they relate to events which occurred more that

six months before the introduction of this application on 13 June 1996.

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.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced

out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)

of the Convention.

2. Insofar as the applicant complains of torture, and invokes

Articles 2, 5, 8 and 12 (Art. 2, 5, 8, 12) of the Convention, the

Commission notes that the applicant has not substantiated that the

treatment which he describes himself as suffering falls within the

responsibility of the respondent Government, nor has he provided any

details of alleged interferences by the respondent Government with any

of the rights referred to. It follows that on examination of the

material submitted by the applicant there is no appearance of a

violation of the provisions of the Convention invoked by him.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M. de SALVIA J.-C. GEUS

Secretary Acting President

to the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant