AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 13047/87

                      by B.

                      against the Federal Republic of Germany

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 10 March 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J.A. FROWEIN

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  G. BATLINER

                  J. CAMPINOS

                  H. VANDENBERGHE

             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 June 1987 by

B. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 2 July

1987 under file N° 13047/87;

        Having regard to:

-       the information provided by the respondent Government on

        21 September 1987 and the comments submitted thereto by the

        applicant on 26 October 1987;

_       the report of February 1988 provided for in Rule 40 of the

        Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

be summarised as follows:

        The applicant, an American citizen born in Poland in 1927,

resides in Zürich/Switzerland.  Before the Commission he is

represented by Messrs.  Heinemann and Meulenbergh, lawyers practising

in Munich and Frankfurt, respectively.  The applicant was detained on

remand in a prison in Munich-Stadelheim until 9 December 1987 when he

was released on bail.

I.

        The applicant is of Polish-Jewish descent.  From 1940 until

1945, i.e. still as a boy in his teens, he was detained under the Nazi

régime in concentration camps.  He was first in an out-station of the

Majdanek camp until 1944, when he was transferred to the Flössenburg

concentration camp.  In the last days of the war he was ordered to

march to Neunburg in Germany where he was to be shot.  At the last

moment, the applicant was saved by soldiers of the United States Army.

The applicant submits that these experiences constitute tragic and

cruel memories for him, and that since 1948 he requires antidepressive

medicaments and tranquillisers.

II.

        On 4 September 1986 the Munich District Court (Amtsgericht)

issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant as suspected of tax

avoidance in an amount of over 2 million DM.

        The applicant was arrested in Hamburg on 8 September 1986 and

thereupon detained on remand by the Munich Regional Court

(Landgericht) on the grounds of a danger of absconding, in particular

in view of the anticipated heavy penalty, and the fact that he lived

abroad.

        The Government submit that the applicant was first thoroughly

examined on 25 September 1986 by the prison doctor for neurology and

psychiatry, the medical director Dr.  W.  As the result of this

examination indicated a suspected abuse of medication, rather than an

organic psychosyndrome, psychiatric drugs were given only on condition

that extreme caution was exercised.  The suspicion that the applicant

was a drug addict thus not only resulted from the note "drug abuse?"

in the applicant's medical record.

        The applicant explains the allegation of drug abuse as

follows.  The applicant has been receiving constant medical treatment

since 1948 and also takes tranquillisers on a regular basis.  He flew

on business from France, where he was on holiday, to Hamburg.  From

there, he intended to go directly to Hong Kong.  Since the necessary

drugs are not available in Hong Kong, he took with him on his journey

a certain supply.  This was discovered in his luggage which led the

doctor at the Hamburg prison, where the applicant was originally

remanded in custody, to make the following entry into his medical

record:  "drug abuse?"

        Subsequently, upon the applicant's instruction, a certain

Professor S prepared an expert opinion of 54 pages which he submitted

on 20 October 1986.  Therein he concluded that the accusations of tax

avoidance laid against the applicant were unfounded.

        In 2 December 1986 a certain Dr.  L, a doctor practising in

Zürich, stated in writing, upon the applicant's request, that the

applicant complained of insomnia and constantly required

tranquillisers.  On 20 December 1986 Dr.  C, who also practised in

Zürich, confirmed that he had treated the applicant's depressions from

1968 to 1975.  On 7 January 1987 Dr.  B, a doctor practising in

Juan-les-Pins in the South of France, confirmed that whenever the

applicant was there he required various tranquillisers

on account of insomnia and phobic anxieties.  Dr.  B stated that

these medicaments were essential for the applicant.

        Meanwhile, on 16 December 1986 the applicant requested the

Munich Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) to terminate

the investigations against the applicant since the suspicions raised

against him were not conclusive.  On 13 February 1987 the applicant

filed a complaint against the warrant of arrest of 4 September 1986.

        By bill of indictment of 25 February 1987 the applicant was

charged with the offence of tax avoidance in an amount of over 2 million

DM.

        On 27 February 1987 the Munich Regional Court ordered the

continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.

        On 19 March 1987 the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandes-

gericht) also ordered the continuation of the applicant's detention on

remand.  The Court found in particular that the conditions for

detention were met;  that the principle of proportionality had been

complied with;  and that there had been no violation of the obligation

speedily to conduct the proceedings (Beschleunigungsgebot).  The Court

found that, in the light of the evidence listed and correctly assessed

in the bill of indictment of 25 February 1987, there was a strong

suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences at issue.

        The Court of Appeal disagreed with the applicant's own

assessment of his acts.  It considered that the applicant had enabled

profits formally to accrue in a watch company in Switzerland although

these profits had actually been made by a watch company in the Federal

Republic of Germany and that this could constitute an offence of tax

avoidance.  The Court also found that there was a danger of the

applicant absconding in view of the severity of the prospective

sentence, particularly since he was an American citizen and not

domiciled in Germany.  In view also of the length of detention so far,

the principle of proportionality was not yet called in question.  The

authorities were continuing to conduct the voluminous investigations

speedily.

        On 14 May 1987, Professor S submitted a supplementary expert

opinion of 56 pages on various questions concerning the charges laid

against the applicant.  The opinion concluded that the applicant could

not be suspected of having committed the offences at issue.

        Against the decisions of the Regional Court of 27 February 1987

and the Court of Appeal of 19 March 1987, the applicant filed a

constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).  He complained,

inter alia, that the Regional Court had erroneously assumed his

culpability since he had not violated any criminal laws.  He

also pointed out that during the Nazi régime he had been groundlessly

detained in a concentration camp.  As a result of these terrible

experiences his present detention on remand violated his

right to inviolability of his person and, in view of the unfounded

accusations, it also amounted to an unbearable psychological torture.

This right was also called in question by the fact that he did not

receive the medication which was essential for him, and that a medical

examination outside the prison had only been possible after six

months.

        The applicant's constitutional complaint included a medical

opinion, dated 23 April 1987, of a certain Professor WM, a neurologist

and psychiatrist of the applicant's choice, who had examined him

between 16 and 26 March 1987.  In his opinion, Professor WM referred

to depressive developments in the applicant standing in close

connection with the pressures of his detention.  During his depressive

phases he apparently reactivated experiences which he had undergone in

the concentration camp.  Against this biographical background

Professor WM found that the applicant's detention constituted a

considerable strain for the applicant and that he should be given

antidepressive medication.  Nevertheless, Professor WM concluded that

in view of the applicant's apparent addiction to medicaments, such

medication should be administered together with psychotherapy.

        On 24 April 1987 a further supplementary medical expert

opinion was prepared by Dr.  MM, upon instruction of Professor WM, this

opinion being the result ofan examination of the applicant on

24 March 1987.  The opinion concluded that the applicant's short

term memory as well as aspects of his coordination, and his ability to

three-dimensional imagination were reduced.  His neurotic depressive

personality suffered from feelings of fear and uncertainty.

        On 11 May 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the

applicant's constitutional complaint as not offering sufficient

prospects of success.  The Court found that it could only examine the

conditions for the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand

from the point of view of constitutional law.  There was no

indication, however, of arbitrariness in the various decisions taken

by the authorities, or that the principle of proportionality had been

overlooked.

        The medical director (Medizinaldirektor) at the Munich-

Stadelheim Prison, Dr.  W, a neurologist and psychiatrist, commented on

20 May 1987, in a statement directed to the Munich Regional Court, on

Professor WM's opinion of 23 April 1987.  Dr.W stated that the

depressions resulting from detention, as described by Professor WM,

could be found in nearly all patients.  Dr.W considered that as long

as there was a suspicion that the aplicant was addicted to medicaments

(Medikamentenmissbrauch), it was not advisable to adminiser to him

antidepressive medication.  This was all the more so since the

applicant's activities showed that his depressive state had not

reached a degree which was so extreme that he required medical

treatment.  Moreover, the psychotherapeutic treatment proposed by

Professor WM was for administrative reasons not feasible in

Munich-Stadelheim prison.  If the applicant's state of health

deteriorated he could be transferred to the psychiatric ward of the

prison in Munich-Straubing, where he could be treated with medicaments

and, possibly, by means of therapeutic talks.

        On 11 June 1987 the Munich Court of Appeal ordered the

continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.  There was in the

Court's view a suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences

at issue.  This was so even if the company concerned in Germany had

failed to request damages against the company in Switzerland.  The

Court also found that the amount of taxes due continued to fall within

the framework of the bill of indictment of 25 February 1987.  There

was, in particular, a net profit of the German company to be

estimated at 1.8 million DM.  There were also no indications that the

German company had had, on 31 December 1980, its own capital of 1

million DM which could be taken into account (verwendbares Eigenkapital).

        Also on 11 June 1987 the applicant wrote to the Munich

Regional Court claiming that it was not clear on the basis of which

conclusions Dr.W had prepared his statement of 20 May 1987.  According

to the relevant documents Dr.W had examined the applicant only on

29 September and 10 December 1986.  Even then, this examination

consisted, according to the applicant, of feeling his pulse and

looking into his eyes.  It was also known to Dr.  W that the applicant

had been treated with antidepressive medicaments and tranquillisers

since 1948.  Finally, the applicant pointed out that on the grounds of

his ill-health he was for the time being not able to examine the files

of the case which amounted to 325 volumes.

        Finally, also on 11 June 1987 the Munich Regional Court

dismissed for security reasons the applicant's request to be

transferred to the psychiatric clinic at Munich university.  The Court

found in particular that a psychotherapeutic treatment was not

possible at the Stadelheim prison, where the applicant was currently

detained, as that prison lacked the required staff, and that he

declined the transfer to Straubing prison where a treatment was

possible.  The Court concluded that the warrant of arrest issued

against the applicant need not be suspended.

        Upon the request of the applicant's lawyer, Professor WM

submitted on 25 June 1987 a further neurological expert opinion on the

applicant.  He pointed out, inter alia, that the experiences

in the psychiatry of persecuted persons (Verfolgtenpsychiatrie)

disclosed that even 40 years later problems of survival and guilt

would constantly surface in the persons concerned, and also in the

applicant.  The opinion suggested that the applicant should be treated

with antidepressive medicaments.  Professor WM also found that

according to the clinical results the applicant's ability to

participate at, and carry through, the hearing (Verhandlungsfähigkeit

und Durchhaltevermögen) was reduced to a maximum of four hours a day.

The opinion continues:

        "Die hier erhobenen klinischen Befunde sind nicht von

        einem solchen Ausprägungsgrad, dass Verhandlungsunfähigkeit

        und Haftunfähigkeit auf Dauer angenommen werden könnte."

        "The clinical observations presented here do not attain

        such a degree that it could be assumed that the ability is

        impaired to participate in the trial or to be detained

        on remand."

        In a further supplementary opinion of 2 July 1987 Professor WM

referred to the statement of Dr.W of 20 May 1987.  Professor WM pointed

out that since April 1987 a depressive syndrome was developing and

that it was very doubtful whether this development resulted merely from

the applicant's detention.  Rather, the applicant's background played

an important role here, in particular his detention in a concentration

camp which had not at all been considered by Dr.W.

        Meanwhile, the Munich Court of Appeal ordered on 30 June 1987

the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.  The various

expert opinions did not in the Court's opinion suffice to call in

question the danger of suspicion, and there was no violation of the

principle of proportionality or of the obligation to conduct the

proceedings speedily.

        On 8 July 1987 the applicant requested the postponement of the

opening of the trial which was planned to take place in August 1987.

The request was eventually granted and the trial began on

14 October 1987.  A medical expert has apparently been present at the

trial.

        On 21 July 1987 the Munich Regional Court decided, upon the

applicant's request, that he could be examined by a psychiatrist,

Dr.  AB, in order to enable the preparation of a private expert

opinion.  Dr.  AB is a specialist in the field of psychiatry concerned

with persons who have had to live in Nazi concentration camps.  The

Court refused the applicant's further request to be treated by a

neurologist of his choice, namely a certain Dr.  L, since adequate

specialist treatment was available in the prison.

        On 6, 7 and 8 August 1987 Dr.  AB examined the applicant.

Dr.  AB was also permitted to look into the medical records at the

prison.

        On 24 August 1987 Dr.  AB submitted his opinion numbering 45

pages.  The opinion referred, on the one hand, in detail to the

applicant's detention in a concentration camp.  On the other hand,

there were different views among scientists on the consequences of

such experiences, though a psychiatrist such as Dr.  W had apparently

not integrated the necessary medical knowledge and historical truth,

and was therefore incompetent.  In Dr.  AB's view, Dr.  W had only

conducted a symptomatic psychodiagnosis.  Dr.  AB concluded inter alia

that the applicant's condition was a regressive one which could be

qualified as a "Borderline Condition" of a patient who had prematurely

aged.  Moreover, in view of the damage to the applicant's health while

13047/87

being detained in a concentration camp he was now unfit to be detained

on remand (haftunfähig), and continuation of his detention would

aggravate his bad health.  Even his transfer into a psychiatric clinic

would not be of any help.

        On 26 August 1987 the applicant requested the Regional Court,

apparently unsuccessfully, to terminate the proceedings instituted

against himself, and to cancel the warrant of arrest or, subsidiarily,

to order the preparation of a medical opinion by Professor WM on the

applicant's ability to be detained on remand.

        On 14 October 1987 the Regional Court decided that the

applicant could be treated by a specialist doctor, trained in

conversational therapy, of his choice, and that medicaments could be

given to the applicant only after consultation of the prison doctors.

        In respect of the period of detention on remand until

14 October 1987, the Government submit that the applicant consulted

the prison doctors or other private doctors (Konziliarärzte) on 10,

14, 17 and 18 October 1986; 4 and 25 November 1986; 2, 15 and 29

December 1986; and 16 and 22 January 1987.  On 10 December 1986 he was

given a follow-up examination by Dr.  W.  In the Government's view, it

is not the fault of the prison doctor that since 24 February 1987 the

applicant has no longer consulted him during the consultation periods.

Occasionally the applicant was even asked to come.  A hospital

director, Ministerialdirektorin Dr.  L, had also asked Dr.  AB to convey

to the applicant that he was welcome to consult her.  Dr.  L also spoke

twice with Dr.  AB who recommended administration of a light

psychopharmacon to the applicant, even if there was no strict medical

indication.

        In the Government's view, the psychiatrist Dr.  AB also

concluded that there was no indication that the desirability of

treatment by medication was desirable.  His recommendation that the

prisoner should be prescribed a mild psychiatric drug was, however,

followed.

        The Government also submit that psychotherapeutic treatment

as part of regular therapeutic sessions would only have been possible

at Straubing prison which takes male prisoners remanded in custody

from the whole of Bavaria.  However, the applicant rejects the idea of

a transfer to that prison.

        The applicant submits that until 14 October 1987 he received

no medical treatment or care at Stadelheim Prison.  A drug which he

had repeatedly requested, was administered for the first time on 20

October 1987.  However, even then he was only given one week's supply.

At present, the applicant is again receiving no medical care, except

such treatment as he managed to obtain as a result of the decision of

the Regional Court of 14 October 1987.

        The applicant points out that the entries in the medical

record also refer to his many visits to the prison doctors and

consultants in Stadelheim prison.  It appears from these entries,

inter alia, that several visits were required for a scalp

condition, rather than on account of his mental problems.  However, on

all his visits to the infirmary he repeatedly requested painkillers

and tranquillisers, which were given to him only on rare occasions.

13047/87

For instance, according to the entry in the medical record of 21

January 1987, the applicant again complained to the prison doctor of

depression and insomnia.  On that occasion he was given no drugs, but

was told that he would be examined by Dr.  WM in the following week.

However, this did not happen until the end of March 1987.

        The applicant alleges that on his many medical visits he

repeatedly drew attention to his mental problems.  However, the prison

doctors did not understand him, so he discontinued the visits.

        The applicant points out that Dr.AB first took the view that

he, the applicant, was not fit to stand trial.  However, subsequently,

Dr.  AB reached the same conclusion as Dr.  WM, namely that the applicant's

fitness to stand trial, although slight, could be preserved if he was

treated by a doctor from outside the prison.  Accordingly, the Regional

Court passed its decision of 14 October 1987 according to which it

approved of the medical treatment by a doctor of the applicant's choice.

This will be a doctor from the psychiatric clinic at the Munich

University.  The treatment commenced on 31 October 1987.

        In the light of the expert opinion of Dr.AB, the applicant

regards it as erroneous to assert that Dr.  AB considered medication

unnecessary or to claim that the authorities complied with his

recommendation according to which the applicant should receive limited

psychopharmacological treatment.  The applicant considers that he could

not reasonably have been expected to accept a transfer to Straubing

prison.  In particular, while still being presumed innocent, he would

have been placed together with convicted offenders, serving long and

indeed life prison sentences for serious offences.  This might also

have had an adverse effect on his defence.

        On 9 December 1987 the Munich Regional Court convicted the

applicant of the offence of tax avoidance and sentenced him to

imprisonment of two years and three months.  At the same time the

warrant of arrest was suspended against bail of 100,000 DM provided by

the applicant.  The applicant was released from detention on

9 December 1987.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicant submits that his experiences in a concentration

camp have permanently damaged his health, and that for this reason he

has required since 1948 neurological treatment and the corresponding

medication.  He complains that since his detention in a prison in

Munich he has been deprived of the necessary treatment, and that his

psychological state has seriously deteriorated.  The applicant also

complains that on account of his detention in a concentration camp he

is now unfit for detention on remand.  The applicant invokes Article 3

of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains that during his detention on remand at

Munich-Stadelheim Prison, he was subjected to treatment contrary to

Article 3 of the Convention.  He submits that he was deprived of

medical treatment essential to his health which has been substantially

affected by his experiences in concentration camps during the Nazi

régime.  The applicant also submits that on account of the suffering

endured during his previous detention in concentration camps he is

today unfit for detention.

2.      The Commission has first examined the manner in which the

applicant underwent detention on remand, in particular his

complaint that contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) he is not receiving

essential medical treatment.

        According to the constant case-law of the Convention organs,

ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention must attain a certain minimum level of severity, if it is

to fall within the scope of this provision.  The assessment of this

minimum is in the nature of things relative and will depend on all the

circumstances of the case (see Eur.  Court H.R., Ireland v. the United

Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, para. 162).

        With regard to the nature of the present complaints the

Commission recalls further that such inhuman treatment may be found to

exist in certain circumstances, when a person's detention as such

causes his ill-health.  In such cases, however, the Commission will

examine in particular the medical treatment at that person's disposal

as well as his or her willingness to make use of any available

services.

        Moreover, there remains the State's obligation to maintain

a continuous review of the detention arrangements employed with a view

to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, having due

respect to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment

(see Bonnechaux v.  Switzerland, Comm.  Report 5.12.79, DR 18 p. 126 ff

at p. 148; No. 8317/78, McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom,

Dec. 15.5.80, DR 20 p. 44 ff at p. 81).

        In the present case the Commission must therefore turn first

to the applicant's state of health and the treatment he required, and

then examine whether the treatment provided was adequate.

        The Commission notes that according to various expert opinions

prepared by specialists the applicant suffers from depressions

resulting from his detention in a concentration camp.  His personal

doctors have confirmed that he needs antidepressive medicaments and

tranquillisers.  However, the prison doctor Dr.  W, a neurologist and

psychiatrist, stated on 20 May 1987 that the applicant was suspected

of being addicted to medicaments.  Similarly, after examining the

applicant, Professor WM, an expert chosen by the applicant, wrote in

his expert opinion of 23 April 1987 that the applicant was apparently

addicted to medicaments and that the required medication should

therefore be administered together with psychotherapy.

        In the light of the above opinion the Commission considers

that the applicant is suffering from a mental condition that requires

treatment, though two specialists point out his possible addiction to

medicaments.

        Against this background the Commission has examined the actual

treatment afforded to the applicant by the prison authorities.  In

particular, a problem could arise under Article 3 (Art. 3) if no, or

only insufficient, treatment was available to the applicant.  In this

respect there is disagreement between the parties.

        The Government submit that the applicant was thoroughly

examined by Dr.W on 25 September and 10 December 1986.  Between

October 1986 and February 1987 he was further examined on 11 occasions

by prison doctors or doctors of his own choice.  Since 24 February

1987 he has no longer consulted the prison doctors.  He has meanwhile

been examined by specialists of his own choice, and since 14 October

1987 he was treated by a specialist doctor trained in conversational

therapy.  Finally, Dr.  W stated on 20 May 1987 that if the applicant's

health deteriorated he could be transferred to the psychiatric ward at

the prison at Munich-Straubing.  As the Courts concerned pointed out, a

treatment in Stadelheim prison was not feasible, and a treatment at

the psychiatric clinic of Munich university, as requested by the

applicant, was not possible for security reasons.

        The applicant contends that only since 14 October 1987 was he

treated by a doctor of his choice.  When Dr.W examined the applicant,

he only took his pulse and looked into his eyes.  His several visits

to the prison infirmary concerned a scalp condition.  The applicant

submits that, although he constantly requested medicaments, only on

rare occasions was he given tranquillisers.  He discontinued the

visits as the doctors did not understand him.  Nevertheless, the

various expert opinions confirmed the necessity for medication and

specialist treatment.  In the applicant's view a transfer to the

psychiatric ward at Straubing prison was not possible since he had to

be presumed innocent as a prisoner on remand, whereas in that prison

convicted offenders are serving long term sentences.  His defence

rights might also have been impaired there.

        The Commission notes that the applicant was examined by Dr.W,

a specialist, on two occasions.  Moreover, he had the possibility

constantly to visit the prison infirmary and to consult the prison

doctors.  By 20 May 1987 Dr.W stated that the applicant's depressive

state had not reached a degree which required special medical

treatment.  Nor did the applicant on his visits to the prison doctors

inform them that his depressions were getting worse and thus required

different treatment.  In fact, after February 1987 the applicant

discontinued altogether his consultations of the prison doctors,

though he was later examined on various occasions by doctors of his

own choice, who pointed out the need for further treatment.

        In this respect the Commission notes that the applicant was

offered the possibility of being treated in a psychiatric ward at

Straubing prison.  At this stage the Commission recalls that due

regard must be had to the requirements of detention on remand and it

notes that the German authorities regarded Stadelheim prison as

unsuitable as it lacked the required staff, or refused for security

reasons a treatment at the psychiatric clinic of Munich University.

        It is true that the applicant has argued that a transfer to

Straubing prison would run counter to the presumption of innocence

and, possibly, to his rights of defence.

        However, it is not clear in what way the applicant's defence

might have suffered from the mere fact that he would have been treated

for a serious psychological condition in a prison which apparently had

the facilities for such treatment and which facilities were not called

in question by the applicant.

        As a result, the Commission considers that the manner in which

the applicant has been undergoing his detention does not constitute

treatment attaining the minimum level of severity to fall within the

scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

3.      The Commission has next examined the applicant's other

complaint that on account of the suffering endured during his

detention in concentration camps he was generally unfit for detention

today.  In this context the applicant has alleged, that his detention

from 1940 to 1945 has permanently damaged his health.  Thus, he is now

no longer able to endure any deprivation of liberty as it forces him

to relive in his mind the terrible years of his incarceration in a

Nazi concentration camp.

        The Commission has carefully assessed the evidence which the

applicant has adduced in support of his claims.  It has had regard in

particular to the psychiatric opinions prepared by Professor WM and by

Dr.  AB.  The latter is a specialist in the field of psychiatry

concerned with persons who were interned in Nazi concentration

camps.  The Commission finds that in principle the detention today of

a person who, like the applicant, has spent five years of his life as

a boy in such camps, might well raise serious issues under Article 3

of the Convention, if, as a direct consequence of his detention, he is

allegedly forced to relive and suffer again the terrible experiences

of the years 1940 to 1945.

        However, the Commission finds that even the medical opinions

submitted by the applicant's own doctors do not sufficiently

substantiate his allegations in this respect.  Professor WM stated on

25 June 1987 that the applicant was not unfit for detention.  Dr.  AB

stated that the applicant was now unfit for detention and he described

the application as a borderline case, but he did not allege that there

was an acute danger to his health.

        In this situation, the Commission, whilst appreciating the

special hardship that the detention on remand from 8 September 1986

until 9 December 1987 must have caused the applicant, cannot find that

it attained such a level of severity as is required to constitute a

violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

4.      It follows that the applicant's complaints do not disclose any

appearance of a violation of the guarantees enshrined in Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention.  The Commission concludes therefore 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

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Deputy Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission

   (J. RAYMOND)                                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)