THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The applicant is a Hungarian citizen, born in 1925 and at present
detained in Broadmoor Hospital.

From his statements and documents he submitted in support of his
application it appears that the applicant was charged on .. November
1966, in Nottingham, with having murdered Emily ... He was found guilty
by the Lincoln City Assizes and was sentenced to life imprisonment in
February 1967.

The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal,
Criminal Division. His appeal was considered first on .. May 1968. The
applicant's presence was permitted and he was in fact present. The
proceedings before the Appeal Court were adjourned in order that the
opportunity should be given to the applicant to prove his alibi by
going to Derbyshire to try to collect evidence that he was at the time
of the alleged crime actually breaking into a house in that area and
stealing the items which were found on him later. Although his
solicitor was supposed to be present, he did not accompany him and as
the applicant alleges, in Derbyshire he was not given any opportunity
to collect evidence. He states that in fact he was only taken to the
police station, detained there for a while and then returned to prison.

The appeal came before the Court of Appeal again on .. June 1968. The
applicant, although allegedly having permission to be present was
prevented from appearing before the Court. On that day the Court
decided that the appeal against conviction should be granted and has,
counsel consenting, treated the hearing as the appeal and has under
Section 5 (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, substituted a verdict
of guilty of manslaughter for the verdict found by the jury and has
ordered that the sentence of life imprisonment shall stand.

The applicant complains that his lawyers failed to fulfil their duties,
in that they pleaded on the grounds of diminished responsibility and
did not seek to obtain complete acquittal as were the instructions of
the applicant. He further complains that contrary to the recognised
judicial practice, he was prevented from appearing before the Court of
Appeal.

Without referring to any specific Articles, the applicant alleges
generally a violation of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints concerning his
conviction and sentence, 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, Vol. III, p.. 233) and 1140/61 (X.
v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there
is not appearance of any such violation in the present case;

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, insofar as the applicant's complaints concerning his
conviction and sentence are directed against his lawyer, it results
from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention that the sole task of the
Commission is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken
in the Convention by the High Contracting Parties, being those members
of the Council of Europe which have signed the Convention and deposited
their instruments of ratification; whereas, moreover, it appears from
Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), of the Convention that the
Commission can properly admit an application from an individual only
if that individual claims to be the victim of a violation of his rights
under the Convention by one of the Parties which have accepted this
competence of the Commission;

Whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the Commission has
no competence ratione personae to admit applications directed against
private individuals; whereas it follows that this part of the
application is incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of
Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) (see Application No. 1599/62,
Yearbook, Vol. VI, pages 348, 356);

Whereas, insofar as the above complaint gives rise to the question
whether the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in London failed to
ensure that the applicant's defence was properly carried out with the
consequences that he was not given a fair hearing within the meaning
of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention, an
examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a
violation of this right; whereas it follows that, in this respect, 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 he was prevented
from appearing in person during the proceedings before the Court of
Appeal, the question arises whether the requirements of Article 6,
paragraphs (1) and (3) (c) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention were
complied with in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal; whereas
the right guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph (3) (Art. 6-3), are both
those of the accused and of the defence in general; and whereas, in
determining whether these rights have been respected, account must be
taken of the general situation of the defence and not of the position
of the accused;

Whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its decision on the
admissibility of 524/59 (Ofner against Austria, Yearbook of the
European Convention on Human Rights, Vol. 3, pages 322 [352]), also
Application No. 1394/62 (X. v. Austria); whereas it is not contested
that the applicant, although he himself was not present at the public
hearing of his appeal before the Court of Appeal, was represented by
Counsel; whereas in these circumstances the Commission finds that the
requirements of Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3) (c)
(Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention were complied with in the
proceedings before the Appeal Court, the principle of "equality of
arms" between the parties having been fully observed;

Whereas, therefore, an examination of the case as it has been submitted
does not disclose any violation of the Convention; 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