Search
document

Document text Analytics

M. v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 16668/90 • ECHR ID: 001-762

Document date: October 11, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

M. v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 16668/90 • ECHR ID: 001-762

Document date: October 11, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16668/90

by M.

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 11 October 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 10 January 1990

by M. against Sweden and registered on 5 June 1990 under file

No. 16668/90;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

The applicant is of Iranian nationality and was born in 1960.

He is a student residing in L., Sweden. He is currently

detained in prison in Sweden. He is represented by Peter Haglund, a

lawyer practising in Falköping.

Before the Commission the applicant complains that he was

wrongly convicted and sentenced for sexual abuse of his daughter. He

also complains that the medical examinations of his daughter and the

taking of secretion and blood samples were not carried out properly.

In this connection he alleges that the samples were not stored

correctly by the authorities, as a result of which some of the samples

were destroyed and some could not be used in order to carry out a DNA

analysis. He alleges that the samples could have proven that he is

innocent but that the authorities deliberately destroyed them.

Finally, the applicant complains that due to the fact that the samples

were destroyed he was not allowed to have witnesses from the medical

research laboratories examined on his behalf regarding the outcome of

the DNA analysis. He alleges a violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3

(b) and (d) of the Convention.

It appears from the file that the applicant was convicted and

sentenced for the above offence to three years' imprisonment by a

judgment of the District Court (tingsrätten) of Linköping on

12 July 1989. His appeal to the Göta Court of Appeal (Göta hovrätt)

was rejected on 12 September 1989 and leave to appeal was refused by

the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) on 12 October 1989.

It furthermore appears that the suspicions about the applicant

having committed sexual abuse arose from two medical examinations

of his daughter in March and April 1989. Certain samples were sent to

laboratories in the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom for DNA analysis.

However, no analysis was made in the U.S.A. and the samples were not

received back. The laboratory in the United Kingdom was unable to

carry out the requested analysis.

The Commission has examined the applicant's separate

complaints as they have been submitted by him. However, with regard

to the judicial decisions of which the applicant complains, the

Commission first recalls that, in accordance with Article 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 established

case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236;

No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec.

13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

It is true that the applicant has also complained that his

right under the Convention to have adequate facilities for the

preparation of his defence and to have witnesses examined on his

behalf were violated.

The Commission, however, finds that the applicant has not

submitted any substantial evidence supporting his allegations that the

Swedish authorities prevented a DNA analysis from being carried out

or substantiated his allegations that the samples were deliberately

destroyed by the Swedish authorities. Moreover, the Commission notes

that the applicant was convicted on the basis of a considerable amount

of other circumstantial evidence such as medical opinions and witness

statements.

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has

been submitted does therefore not disclose any appearance of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the provisions invoked

by the applicant.

It follows that 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 THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant