THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and when last heard of, on 17th May, 1965, detained in prison at Münster/Westfalia. At that time he stated that he hoped to be released on .. September, 1965. He states that, on .. December, 1960, he was convicted by the Regional Court (Landgericht) at Detmold on charges of receiving stolen goods (Hehlerei). Upon appeal (Revision) presumably to the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) he was acquitted for lack of evidence against him (Mangel an Beweisen). He had spent 2 1/2 months in detention on remand for which, however, he had received no compensation. He states that, at the time, he had lodged an appeal to have his detention examined (Haftbeschwerde) which had been dismissed. It appears that, on .. November, 1963, he was again convicted by the Regional Court at Detmold on charges of fraud and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment. His appeal (Revision), presumably to the Federal Court, was dismissed on a date not indicated in the Application. His detention pending trial, and his detention pending appeal in so far as it exceeded three months, were credited towards his sentence. On .. March, 1964, the Applicant applied to the Regional Court of Detmold for compensation for the detention on remand suffered in 1960. This was rejected on .. April, 1964, and again on .. May, 1964. On .. June, 1964, he lodged a petition with the Regional Court at Detmold requesting that his previous detention on remand be credited toward his present sentence by way of a pardon (im Gnadenwege). The Court rejected his petition on .. August, 1964 on the ground that his acquittal in 1960 was simply for lack of evidence against him, the suspicion that he had committed the offence still persisting. The Applicant appealed (Beschwerde) to the Minister of Justice of North Rhine-Westfalia on .. August, 1964. The appeal was rejected on .. October, 1964, on the ground that neither his previous conviction nor the criminal proceedings against him in 1960 had prevented him from committing further offenses. This decision was communicated to the Applicant by letter of .. October, 1964, from the Pardon Division of the Regional Court (Gnadenstelle bei dem Landgericht) at Detmold. He complains that the refusal to give him credit for the detention on remand suffered in 1960 was unlawful. He alleges that the reasoning of the court and of the Pardon Division violated the Convention in that it referred to the criminal proceedings in 1960 in which he had been acquitted. This, the Applicant concludes, resulted in a non-recognition of the principle that everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Consequently, he further concludes, his detention on remand subjected him to degrading treatment. He further complains that the detention on remand itself had been unlawful. Since, meanwhile, he hopes to have been released from prison he requests to be released from payment of the costs incurred in his trial in 1963. He alleges a violation of Articles 3, 5 paragraph (3) and 6 paragraph (2) of the Convention. THE LAW Whereas the Applicant has based his claim for compensation for his detention on remand in 1960 on Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3), of the Convention which refers to Article 5, paragraph (1) (c) (Art. 5-1-c), and consequently also on Article 5, paragraph (5) (Art. 5-5); Whereas the Commission does not find that Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3), is relevant in the present case which only concerns an allegation of wrongful detention on remand and a consequent claim for compensation; whereas it is to be observed, first, that under Article 5, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 5-1-c), the detention of a person "effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" does not constitute a violation of the Convention, provided that the procedure prescribed by law has been respected; whereas the Applicant's allegations do not disclose any element which would cause the Commission to have any doubts on the question whether or not the above conditions have been met in the present case; whereas the Commission, having also considered ex officio the Applicant's complaint in the light of Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4), of the Convention, finds that there is no appearance of any violation of that provision; whereas, consequently, the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (5) (Art. 5-5), do not apply to this case as only a person "who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation"; whereas, therefore, examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 5 (Art. 5); whereas it follows that this part of the Application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that in the fixing of his sentence, he was refused credit for his detention on remand in 1960, which was in connection with different proceedings against him, it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals; Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas no right to obtain credit for detention on remand is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decision, No. 1699/62, X. v. Austria; whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of alleged inhuman and degrading treatment and also the court's failure to observe the principle of presumption of innocence in deciding on his requests to obtain credit for his detention on remand, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Articles 3 and 6 (Art. 3, 6); whereas it follows that this part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.