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 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.


        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.


        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

        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

        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

        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

        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

        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

        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

        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


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

        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,

        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.


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.


        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.


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

        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

        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


Deputy Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission

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