AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 36800/97

                      by Amir HEIDARI

                      against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

22 January 1998, the following members being present:

           MM    S. TRECHSEL, President

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

           Mrs   G.H. THUNE

                 F. MARTINEZ

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs   J. LIDDY

           MM    L. LOUCAIDES

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 P. LORENZEN

                 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 3 July 1997 by Amir HEIDARI against Sweden

and registered on 7 July 1997 under file No. 36800/97;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 12 November 1997 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 16 December 1997;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant, an Iranian citizen born in 1953, is detained in

Sweden awaiting his forthcoming deportation. He is represented by

Mr Ingemar Sahlström, a lawyer in Uppsala.

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

summarised as follows.

A.    The particular circumstances of the case

      The applicant arrived in Sweden as a student in 1979 and was

granted a residence permit valid for one year. Shortly thereafter he

applied for a residence permit with reference to his membership of a

group which had been criticising the Shah's regime in Iran. After

Ayatollah Khomeini had come to power the group had allegedly begun to

sympathise with the Kurdish people and the applicant had been wounded

when participating in a combat. This fact and the general situation in

the country had made him want to leave Iran.

      In 1981 the applicant was granted a fresh residence permit valid

for one year. In 1982 he requested a permanent residence permit and a

travel document. This request was granted later in 1982, the applicant

having been considered a refugee. He was not issued with a declaration

confirming his refugee status (flyktingförklaring).

      In 1984 the applicant was convicted in Sweden on several counts

of document forgery and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The

offences mainly involved the falsification of passports.

      In 1988, when the applicant was wanted by the Swedish police, his

brother in Sweden informed the authorities that the applicant had left

Sweden in 1987. The applicant alleges that he had gone to live in

Norway, Denmark and Germany.

      On 14 March 1990 the applicant was again convicted in Sweden on

several counts involving the preparation of a document forgery and

violations of the Aliens Act (utlänningslag 1989:529). The latter

offences involved activities aimed at assisting, in return for money,

Iranians lacking valid travel documents in entering Sweden. He was

sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

      In 1992 the applicant was convicted in Denmark of violations of

the Danish Aliens Act. He was again sentenced to imprisonment.

      On 12 February 1993 the District Court (tingsrätten) of Uppsala

convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud, document forgery and

violation of the Aliens Act. He was sentenced to one year and

six months' imprisonment, ordered to be deported and banned from

returning to Sweden.

      According to the District Court's judgment, the applicant had

stated that he had returned to Iran before February 1988 and that he

had taken another name. In the proceedings before the Svea Court of

Appeal (Svea hovrätt) the applicant denied having returned to Iran. On

7 April 1993 the Court of Appeal sentenced him to four years'

imprisonment but quashed the deportation order, finding no evidence

contradicting his denial as regards his return to Iran.

      On 10 May 1995 the National Immigration Board (Statens

invandrarverk) withdrew the applicant's residence permit. It noted that

he had been reported as having left Sweden already in 1988 and that he

had not since presented himself to the Swedish authorities.

      On 12 October 1995 the applicant was released on parole and

apparently left Sweden. In August 1996 he re-entered Sweden without

reporting to the authorities and without requesting a new residence

permit.

      In further criminal proceedings against the applicant before the

Uppsala District Court the National Immigration Board, in an opinion

of 16 December 1996, referred to the withdrawal of his residence permit

on 10 May 1995. In a supplementary opinion of 18 December 1996 the

Board considered that the applicant could no longer be considered

resident in Sweden.

      On 7 January 1997 the Uppsala District Court convicted the

applicant of complicity in aggravated fraud. He was sentenced to one

year's imprisonment, ordered to be deported and banned from re-entering

Sweden. According to the District Court's judgment, the applicant had

argued against his possible deportation by referring to his "previous

activities against the Iranian regime both in Iran and abroad". The

District Court noted that the National Immigration Board had withdrawn

his residence permit and had found no obstacles to deporting him. In

ordering his deportation the District Court noted that the applicant

had been repeatedly convicted both in Sweden and Denmark of similar

offences (essentially relating to the forgery of passports which

asylum-seekers had presented to immigration authorities).

      The applicant did not lodge any ordinary appeal against the

District Court's deportation order which thus gained legal force.

      On 11 April 1997 the Legal Aid Authority (Rättshjälpsmyndigheten)

refused the applicant legal aid for seeking to have the deportation

order quashed pursuant to chapter 7, section 16 of the Aliens Act. On

25 April 1997 he lodged a request to that effect with the Government.

Assisted by counsel, he alleged that as the leader of the Swedish

section of the association "Sohl", he had allegedly helped thousands

of Iranians (notably deserters, jews and converts to Christianity)

leave Iran illegally and enter Sweden with a view to seeking asylum.

The applicant furthermore alleged that he had repeatedly criticised the

Iranian regime in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German media and that

he was well-known both in Europe and Iran for his assistance to

asylum-seeking Iranians. Finally, he referred to his activities within

the guerrilla movement in Iran.

      On 29 May 1997 the applicant requested the National Immigration

Board to clarify whether the declaration of refugee status which he had

allegedly received earlier on had been withdrawn. Reference was made

to the Board's letter to him of 1 October 1996.

      On 9 June 1997 the Legal Aid Board (Rättshjälpsnämnden) dismissed

the applicant's appeal against the legal aid refusal of 11 April 1997.

      In an opinion to the Government dated 16 June 1997 the Swedish

Embassy in Iran considered that the applicant's alleged guerrilla and

political activities were not of such a character that they constituted

an obstacle to the enforcement of the deportation order. There were

various indications that the Iranian authorities were aware of the

applicant's extensive smuggling activities. On the other hand, the

Swedish Embassy suspected that without contacts to high-ranking Iranian

officials it would not have been possible for the applicant to organise

those activities. In those circumstances there should be no risk for

him to return to Iran. However, if his contacts were unable to protect

him he might run a certain risk of being imprisoned for up to ten years

for having organised "activities aimed at jeopardising Iran's national

security". A more severe sentence could not be totally excluded.

      On 3 July 1997 the Government dismissed the applicant's request

to have the deportation order quashed, considering that there were no

obstacles to the enforcement thereof nor any other special reasons for

granting the request.

      On 7 July 1997 the applicant again requested the Government to

quash the deportation order, now essentially referring to a book and

a booklet written by him which had allegedly been published in Iran.

The book concerned religious matters and some copies thereof had

allegedly been confiscated by the Iranian authorities. The booklet

contained advice to prospective asylum-seekers. Counsel for the

applicant stated that he had been aware of the book for a long time and

that the booklet had been written three years ago.

      On 7 July 1997 the Government (the Acting Minister of Justice)

suspended the enforcement of the deportation order pending the outcome

of the applicant's fresh petition. It was noted that the applicant

would be released on parole at the earliest on 8 July 1997. The

Government therefore ordered his detention pursuant to chapter 6,

section 2, subsection 1 of the Aliens Act and informed him of his right

to request the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) to review

the detention order.

      Following the applicant's release on parole on 8 July 1997 he was

immediately detained pursuant to the Aliens Act on the basis of the

Government's decision of 7 July 1997.

      The applicant alleges that, on 29 July 1997, the Government

supplemented its decision of 7 July 1997 with the reasons for his

detention, i.e. the risk that he might otherwise continue his criminal

activities or evade enforcement. The applicant furthermore alleges that

the Government did not deal with his request for legal aid in the

review proceedings.

      It appears that, on or after 29 July 1997, the applicant

requested the Supreme Administrative Court to review the lawfulness of

his detention under the Aliens Act. On 14 August 1997 the Supreme

Administrative Court upheld the detention order. On 5 September 1997

the Government decided to prolong the applicant's detention.

      In a further opinion to the Government the Swedish Embassy in

Iran in essence maintained its position of 16 June 1997 but corrected

its previous opinion to the effect that the maximum prison sentence

which the applicant might risk if returned to Iran was three years.

      On 26 September 1997 the applicant withdrew his second petition

to the Government to have the deportation order quashed. On

30 September 1997 the Government struck the request off its list but

maintained the detention order.

      On 6 October 1997 the National Immigration Board suspended the

enforcement of the deportation order until further notice, having

regard to the proceedings before the Commission.  On 23 October 1997

the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal

against the detention order of 5 September 1997.

B.    Relevant domestic law

      According to the Aliens Act, the possible deportation of an alien

who has been found guilty of a criminal offence shall be considered by

the court which convicted him or by the appeal court (chapter 4,

section 8 and chapter 7, section 8). A person who is to be regarded as

a refugee in need of a sanctuary in Sweden may not be deported on

account of a criminal offence unless certain requirements are met

(chapter 4, section 10). These restrictions are brought into effect

when the alien has been issued with a declaration confirming his

refugee status (chapter 3, section 6).

      The Government may quash a deportation order which has been

issued by a court following the alien's conviction and which has gained

legal force. Alternatively, the Government may suspend the enforcement

of the deportation order by granting a residence permit limited in time

(chapter 7, section 16).

      An adult alien may be detained for up to two months and

exceptionally for a longer period inter alia in order to prepare the

enforcement of a deportation order and provided he or she might

otherwise go into hiding or take up or continue criminal activities in

Sweden (chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 (3) and section 4). An alien

may furthermore be detained if his or her identity is unclear either

on the arrival in Sweden or when a residence permit is being sought

(chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 (1)). Detention may also be ordered

if it is necessary for the purpose of inquiring into the alien's right

to remain in Sweden (chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 (2)).

      Detention under the Aliens Act can be ordered by, for instance,

the competent Minister if the Government is the authority dealing with

the principal matter (chapter 6, section 9). In that case an appeal

unlimited in time lies with the Supreme Administrative Court

(chapter 7, section 7).

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant complains that his forthcoming deportation to Iran

would violate Article 3 of the Convention by subjecting him to a real

risk of capital punishment, torture or other inhuman treatment. He

essentially refers to his activities as a "refugee smuggler", to his

criticism of the Iranian regime in media and to his book which was

allegedly published in Iran on 3 June 1997 and distributed in three

cities on 26 June 1997.

2.    In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant also complains

that he had no effective remedy against the National Immigration

Board's decision of 10 May 1995 of which he was never officially

notified.

      In the same submissions the applicant furthermore complains that

he had no effective remedy against the Government's decision of

3 July 1997 not to quash the deportation order.

      In these respects the applicant invokes Article 13 of the

Convention.

3.    In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant furthermore

complains that his first request for a court review of the lawfulness

of his detention under the Aliens Act was not decided speedily. No such

review was possible before 29 July 1997, when the Government allegedly

provided the reasons for its detention order of 7 July 1997. The

applicant invokes Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.

4.    In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant finally

complains that he was denied legal aid both in the proceedings before

the Government and in the proceedings regarding his detention for

deportation purposes. He invokes no particular Convention provision.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 3 July 1997 and registered on

7 July 1997.

      On 7 July 1997 the Commission decided to communicate to the

respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of

Procedure, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. Pursuant

to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, it also decided to indicate to

the Government that it would be desirable in the interests of the

parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to enforce the

deportation order concerning the applicant until the Commission had

examined the application at the latest on 19 September 1997.

      On 30 July 1997 the applicant submitted further complaints.

      On 18 September 1997 the Commission's indication under Rule 36

was prolonged until 31 October 1997 and, on 30 October 1997, it was

prolonged until 12 December 1997.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on

12 November 1997, after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose.

      On 11 December 1997 the Commission's indication under Rule 36 was

prolonged until 23 January 1998.

      On 12 December 1997 the applicant was granted legal aid.

      The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on

16 December 1997.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains that his expulsion to Iran would violate

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention by subjecting him to a real risk

of capital punishment, torture or other inhuman treatment. He

essentially refers to his activities as a "refugee smuggler", to his

criticism of the Iranian regime in media and to his book which was

allegedly published in Iran on 3 June 1997 and distributed in three

cities on 26 June 1997. He invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

which reads as follows:

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

      degrading treatment or punishment."

      The Government consider that the domestic remedies have not been

exhausted, since the applicant did not appeal against the District

Court's judgment of 7 January 1997 which comprised the deportation

order. In that judgment the applicant was, according to the

Government's interpretation thereof, no longer considered a refugee,

given that he was no longer in need of protection in Sweden.

Accordingly, the special criteria applicable to the expulsion of a

refugee did not apply. The applicant's petition to the Government with

a view to having the deportation order quashed must be seen as an

outflow of the institute of pardon and cannot be considered a remedy

for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The

examination of that petition did not amount to a review of the District

Court's decision, given that the Government could only consider those

circumstances which had not been examined in the criminal proceedings.

Finally, the Government note that the applicant withdrew his second

petition with a view to having the deportation order quashed.

      In the alternative, the Government consider that the application

is manifestly ill-founded. The Swedish authorities have gained

considerable experience in examining asylum cases concerning Iranians.

There have been no reports of ill-treatment of Iranians returned from

Sweden following a refusal to grant them a residence permit. Many

Iranian asylum seekers and holders of residence permits in Sweden are

able to travel freely between the two countries. There is no indication

that the applicant is or has been wanted by the Iranian authorities.

The Government do not dispute that he is well-known for his smuggling

activities and cannot exclude that he may have made critical statements

about the Iranian regime both in Sweden and other countries. However,

the Government are unable to confirm that the applicant smuggled

persons out of Iran. On the contrary, various court records and

investigations show that many of the Iranians whom the applicant has

assisted left Iran lawfully and were only subsequently smuggled into

Western countries. The Government cannot confirm the applicant's

allegation that he has not returned to Iran since 1987. If, as he seems

to have stated earlier on, he has visited Iran after arriving in Sweden

this fact would speak against his assertions before the Commission. The

Government furthermore note that he has refused to provide any

verifiable information about the association "Sohl". According to the

Swedish Embassy in Iran it almost certainly does not exist. The book

allegedly written by the applicant has most likely never been published

and the contents thereof would not seem to be blasphemous against

Islam. Nor is there any certainty as to the alleged confiscation by the

Iranian authorities of the booklet written by the applicant. At any

rate this publication does not advise Iranians how they could leave

their country illegally but rather how they could enter a Western

country. Finally, the Government strongly believe that the applicant

has provided the Swedish authorities with incorrect and incomplete

information regarding his background in Iran and his activities in

Sweden.

      The applicant considers that he has exhausted domestic remedies

by turning to the Government, that body being the highest Swedish

authority in aliens cases. Moreover, in examining his request that the

deportation order be quashed the Government were competent in some

respects to make the same assessment as the District Court. There was

no reason to expect the Government to reconsider its decision of 3 July

1997 which therefore must be considered the final one for the purposes

of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The applicant furthermore

contends that his return to Iran would place him at risk of treatment

contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3).

      The Commission considers that it is not required to decide

whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any

appearance of a violation of the Articles invoked as, under Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention, it "may only deal with the matter after

all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally

recognised rules of international law ...".

      The Commission has recently rejected an application against

Sweden due to the applicant's failure timely to seek leave to appeal

to the Supreme Court against a judgment comprising a deportation order

(see No. 34944/97, Dec. 8.9.97, unpublished). In another application

against Sweden the applicant had likewise not requested leave to appeal

against a deportation order issued in criminal proceedings against him

but had later petitioned the Government to quash the order

(No. 20002/92, Dec. 5.4.95, unpublished). In that case the Commission

accepted that, in so far as there had been a change in the relevant

circumstances, the applicant could be excused for having failed to seek

leave to appeal to the Supreme Court before those changes had occurred.

      In the present case the Commission recalls that the applicant did

not appeal against the District Court's judgment of 7 January 1997 in

which his deportation was ordered. Had such an appeal failed, he would

have had a further possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the

Supreme Court. Before the Commission the applicant has alleged that his

book was published and distributed in Iran in June 1997, i.e. after the

District Court's judgment had gained legal force. However, it

transpires from the applicant's second petition to the Government dated

7 July 1997 that the book and the booklet had been written some time

ago, the booklet as much as three years earlier.

      The Commission therefore finds that, unlike in Application

No. 20002/92, there is no indication that the gist of the applicant's

various allegations relating to his purported risk of being treated

contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) on his return to Iran could not have

been made already in the afore-mentioned criminal proceedings and

ultimately in a request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

      In these circumstances the applicant's first petition to the

Government in which he sought to have the deportation order quashed

after it had already gained legal force cannot be considered a remedy

for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

Accordingly, the applicant has not exhausted the remedies available to

him under Swedish law. Moreover, an examination of the application does

not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might

have absolved him, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law, from exhausting the remedies at his disposal in the

criminal proceedings.

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected for

non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2.    In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant also complains

that he had no effective remedy against the National Immigration

Board's decision of 10 May 1995 of which he was never officially

notified. Moreover, he had no effective remedy against the Government's

decision of 3 July 1997. He invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention which reads as follows:

      "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy

      before a national authority notwithstanding that the

      violation has been committed by persons acting in an

      official capacity."

(a)   As regards the lack of an effective remedy against the National

Immigration Board's decision of 10 May 1995, the Commission recalls

that pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention it may only

deal with the matter if it has been brought to its attention within a

period of six months from the date on which the final domestic decision

was taken or from the date when a continuing situation ceased to exist

(cf., e.g., No. 14807/89, Dec. 12.2.92, D.R. 72, p. 148).

      The Commission notes that the applicant was made aware of the

National Immigration Board's decision of 10 May 1995 at the latest

during the criminal proceedings ending with the District Court's

judgment of 7 January 1997. However, this complaint was introduced only

on 30 July 1997, that is more than six months later.

      It follows that this aspect of the complaint must be rejected

pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention for non-

compliance with the six months' rule.

(b)   As regards the lack of an effective remedy against the

Government's decision of 3 July 1997, the Commission recalls its

finding in para. 1 above that, prior to that decision, the applicant

had had at his disposal ordinary remedies of which he failed to avail

himself in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. The

Commission considers that in such circumstances Article 13 (Art. 13)

of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring an extraordinary

remedy such as the possibility to petition the Government to quash the

deportation order. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant had no

remedy against the Government's refusal of such a petition does not

raise any issue under Article 13 (Art. 13). Accordingly, there is no

indication of any violation of that provision.

      It follows that this aspect of the complaint must be rejected as

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.    In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant furthermore

complains that he was denied a speedy examination of his first request

for a court review of the lawfulness of his detention under the Aliens

Act. He invokes Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention which

reads as follows:

      "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."

      The Commission recalls that the question whether proceedings

within the meaning of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) complied with the

condition of speed cannot be defined in abstracto but must be assessed

in the light of the circumstances of the particular case (see, e.g.,

Eur. Court HR, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October

1986, Series A  no. 107, p. 20, para. 55). The Commission must take

account of the general conduct of the proceedings and the extent to

which delays can  be attributed to the applicant or his legal

representative (see, e.g., No. 11531/85, Dec. 7.10.87, D.R. 53, pp.

128, 139 with further reference).

      In the present case the Commission notes that already the

Government's decision of 7 July 1997 conferred on the applicant the

right to seek a court review of the lawfulness of his detention under

the Aliens Act. It is true that the decision of 7 July 1997 only

referred to chapter 6, section 2, subsection 1 of the Aliens Act and

not expressly to any particular number in that subsection.

Nevertheless, given that the applicant had already been issued with a

deportation order, he cannot have been in any doubt as to the legal

provision on which the deprivation of his liberty had been based,

namely subsection 1 (3) of the said provision which covered detention

for enforcement purposes.

      In these circumstances the Commission does not find that the

applicant was obliged to await the reasons allegedly adduced by the

Government on 29 July 1997 before turning to the Supreme Administrative

Court. Accordingly, the proceedings to which this complaint refers must

be considered to have started only with the applicant's request which

appears to have been lodged on or after 29 July 1997. They ended with

the Supreme Administrative Court's decision of 14 August 1997 and thus

lasted a  maximum of approximately sixteen days. In the circumstances

of the case such a delay cannot be considered to have exceeded the

period permissible under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the

Convention. Accordingly, there is no indication of a violation of that

provision.

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4.    In his submissions of 30 July 1997 the applicant finally

complains that he was denied legal aid both in the proceedings before

the Government and in the proceedings regarding his detention for

deportation purposes. He invokes no particular Convention provision.

(a)   As regards the denial of legal aid in the proceedings with a view

to having the deportation order quashed, the Commission finds that they

did not involve any determination of the applicant's civil rights and

obligations or of any criminal charge against him. Accordingly,

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is not applicable.

      It follows that this aspect of the complaint is incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

(b)   As regards the purported denial of legal aid in the proceedings

for the review of the applicant's detention under the Aliens Act, this

matter could in principle raise an issue under the above-mentioned

Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention as regards the

lawfulness of the detention (cf., e.g., Bouamar v. Belgium judgment of

29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 24, para. 60).

      However, the Commission finds no substantiation of the

applicant's allegation that he requested legal aid in the review

proceedings. Accordingly, there is no indication of any violation of

Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.

      It follows that this aspect of the complaint must be rejected as

being 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                        S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                           President

      to the Commission                   of the Commission