THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant was born in 1939 and states that he is an "Ascesion". When he last wrote to the Commission he was detained in prison in Vienna. The Applicant has not submitted any documents. In his original letter and in his application form he stated that he was sent to Austria on a diplomatic mission by the Government of Burundi. On ... 1963 he was arrested in a brutal manner in Vienna, allegedly because his extradition had been requested by France. On the same day his property was seized when the police visited the house of the Austrian parents of his fiancée. The Applicant complains that a loss of 17,000 Francs was incurred by this seizure. He had on his person 35,000 Austrian Schillings and other money in American Express and First National City Bank Traveller's cheques, for which he was made to sign when they were removed from him. He states that to this list which he signed at the time, were subsequently added other articles including some which he never possessed, e.g. printed African traveller's cheques, rubber stamps, etc. On ... 1963 and on several subsequent occasions, the Applicant was brought before a judge and had the services of an interpreter for which he received a bill of some 1,200 Austrian Schillings. The judge refused to release the Applicant's money to enable him to pay his lawyers. The Applicant was subsequently tried on a charge of forging documents, in particular his Burundi passport. He complains that he did not receive free legal assistance and states that the Public Prosecutor brought no evidence to show that these documents were not valid but, nevertheless, the judge found the Applicant guilty and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. On appeal to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) the Applicant's diplomatic status was allegedly recognised and, on ... 1963, the judgment of the lower court overruled and the sentence quashed. The Applicant indicates that charges were pending against him in France and Yugoslavia for allegedly using forged traveller's cheques purporting to have been issued by the "Bank of West Africa" in Lagos. Without giving further details, he alleges breach of Articles 3, 5, paragraphs (3) and (4), 6, paragraphs (1) and (3), subparagraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e), Article 7, paragraph (1), Articles 14 and 15 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol. He requests his "immediate extradition to France". By a letter of 23rd August 1965 from the Commission's Secretary, the Applicant was invited to submit copies of the court decisions forming the subject of his complaint. This letter was returned to the Secretariat and it was stated on the envelope that the Applicant had been extradited to Switzerland and that his new address was unknown (nach der Schweiz überstellt - neue Adresse unbekannt). THE LAW Whereas under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the Applicant failed to show that he seized the competent Austrian Courts of his complaints; whereas, in particular, there is no indication that, in respect of the alleged seizure of his property, he addressed himself to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) invoking Article 5 of the Basic Law (Staatsgrundgesetz) of Austria; Whereas, following the decision given by the Court of Appeal on ...1963, by which his conviction and sentence were quashed, the Applicant should also have sought a review of the earlier decision concerning his obligation to pay the costs of interpretation; and whereas it does not appear that he has availed himself of this further remedy; Whereas, therefore, he has not established that he has exhausted the remedies available to him under Austrian law; whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the Applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal; whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention has not been complied with by the Applicant. Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.