THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant is a German citizen born in 1902 and at present detained in the prison at Butzbach. On ... 1964, the Applicant was convicted of a homosexual offence with an adolescent by the Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court (Strafkammer des Landgerichts) in Frankfurt. His appeal (Revision) was rejected by the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) on ... 1965. On ... 1965, the Applicant requested the Public Prosecutor in Frankfurt to prosecute one of the witnesses for perjury and procuration of perjury in his trial. The Applicant was acquitted on the count on which this witness gave evidence. This count related to homosexual behaviour with the witness's son who had given evidence, which the Applicant states to be false, of homosexual acts by the Applicant. The Applicant considers that although he was acquitted on this count the evidence given may have affected his sentence. The Applicant complains particularly that he has been sentenced to preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) and considers that he has suffered injustice in that - the court refused to grant an application of the defence to call a second psychiatrist as an expert witness because, in the opinion of the Applicant, the psychiatrist called did not show the necessary understanding of the case and had a negative attitude towards homosexuality; a statement appeared in the judgment which is not true and which was not at any stage of the proceedings put to the Applicant so that he had no opportunity of disproving it, namely: that the Applicant had discussed sexual subjects with the adolescent with whom he was convicted of committing homosexual acts before these acts were committed with the intention of causing erotic stimulation; the proceedings were rushed and the court sat for an unduly long time (from 9.15 a.m. to 9.35 p.m.) with the result that certain matters were not given sufficient attention: in particular the motives, tendencies and personality of the accused seen as a whole; his five former convictions were taken into account in fixing the sentence and ordering preventive detention without proper attention being given to the fact that the first two convictions (1938 and 1940) occurred during the period of National Socialist Government and were affected by the political circumstances. It was impossible for him to apply for retrial and prove his innocence because the competent court was in East Berlin where the offenses were treated as having been effaced by prescription. For this reason the Applicant considers that they were improperly taken into consideration by the trial court. With regard to the other convictions the Applicant (who in one case considers that he was innocent) objects that they have been taken into account without proper consideration being given to the mitigating factors which were present in each case. The Applicant complains that the court had treated his opinion that an affectionate relationship between men and youths in the Socratic tradition was justified as a negative factor in assessing his punishment. The Applicant also complains that a letter which he sent to a witness on the count on which he was acquitted was not forwarded on grounds that it was liable to influence the proceedings. He appealed to the Court and the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on this point but his appeals were rejected. The Applicant relies on the following Articles of the Convention: 1, 5 (2), 5 (5), 6 (1), 6 (3) (a), 6 (3) (b), 6 (3) (d), 9 (1), 14. THE LAW Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint concerning his conviction and subsequent detention, 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 especially in the Articles invoked by the Applicant; Whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the Commission, has frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention; whereas, 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 the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X v. Belgium - Yearbook III, page 233) and 1140/61 (X v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Volume 8, page 57); and whereas there is no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of; 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; Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that a letter addressed by him to a witness was not forwarded, 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 Article 8 since the stopping of a letter calculated to influence a witness is justified as a measure aimed at the prevention of crime and thus falls within the terms of paragraph (2) of Article 8 (Art. 8-2); 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.