THE FACTS

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

The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, born in 1932 and at present
living in Rawalpindi, West Pakistan.

It appears that he entered the United Kingdom on a Pakistani passport
and with an Employment Voucher on 2 July 1963. The applicant states
that on .. May 1968 he was tried by H. Borough Court on a charge of
indecent assault and after pleading guilty was sent to prison on
remand. He alleges that on 16 May 1968 he was brought up for trial
before the same court and sentenced to "2 x 2" months consecutive
imprisonment with a recommendation for deportation. The applicant
states that he was in fact deported on 9 October 1968 by a deportation
order dated 18 September 1968.

In the first place the applicant alleges irregularities in the course
of his arrest. It seems that one of the arresting police officers hit
him in the stomach and made insulting remarks. Also that the confession
which he made to them was untrue because he was under the influence of
alcohol and was in any case frightened that the police officers would
assault him again. Further the applicant complains that he was not
allowed an interpreter and was given no legal assistance.

The applicant further complains that he was wrongly convicted and
sentenced. Nevertheless, it seems that he pleaded guilty at his trial.
He attributes this to deliberate misguidance by a police officer. He
also states that he was given no legal aid, interpreter or welfare or
probation officer, that the court failed to consider all the evidence
or to give him a proper hearing and that he was not allowed to
cross-examine the witness and prosecution.

According to the applicant, his prison sentence lasted from 8 May 1968
to 9 September 1968 but he was unlawfully detained from this latter
date until 8 October 1968, the day he was deported. He further alleges
that his solicitor told him that his deportation order was issued on
18 September 1968, after his prison sentence had ended, but that he was
not notified until 5 October 1968, four days before his actual
deportation.

The applicant says that originally he appealed both against his
sentence and the deportation order and that although he withdrew the
appeal against sentence in August 1968, because three-quarters of his
sentence had already passed, he at no time withdrew the appeal against
deportation. At no time up to the date of his actual deportation was
he given any information about this appeal but he states that he has
since heard from a reliable source that the appeal has been granted.

It appears that the applicant has a son by an English woman living in
L. he states that up to April 1968, he was paying her a weekly sum as
maintenance and that while he was in prison in L. she applied to the
Prison Governor to marry him and he sent his consent to the Home
Office. Permission was refused. This was confirmed by two letters from
Mrs. C., the woman concerned, who says that their son is pining for his
father. The applicant states that he was not allowed to see his son or
Mrs. C. before leaving England.

The applicant also alleges that during his imprisonment he requested
an interview with the High Commissioner of Pakistan in England, but
that this also was refused.

The applicant further states that he owns two furnished houses in H.
whose total value he assesses at £2,000. He alleges that when property
was stolen from these houses in 1965 the police deliberately failed to
carry out proper enquiries. It appears from a series of confused
statements that the furniture in one of the houses has been sold for
a nominal price and that the property in the other has been stolen. In
any case the applicant asserts that he has received no money at all and
that in his absence the value of the houses is decreasing. According
to one of his statements the houses may also have been sold.

Finally, the applicant complains that he was deported without being
allowed to take his clothes and papers and that as a result he is
unable to obtain work in Pakistan.

He considers that all the injustices to which he has been subjected are
attributed to racial discrimination.

The applicant contends that the Convention in general has been violated
without specifying any particular Articles.

It appears that he claims £2,000 as value of his property and also to
be allowed to return to the United Kingdom, as a special case, to marry
the mother of his son.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to his arrest
and to certain irregularities in the course thereof, it is to be
observed that, 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
made any complaints in this respect to the competent courts or
authorities in the United Kingdom; whereas, therefore he has not
exhausted the remedies available to him under English law;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to his
conviction and sentence and to the court proceedings concerned, it is
noted that he withdrew his appeal in this respect; whereas, therefore,
the applicant has again not exhausted the remedies available to him
under English 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 in either case the domestic remedies at his
disposal;

Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic
remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27 (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the
Convention has not been complied with by the applicant;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint relating to his
deportation from the United Kingdom, 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 the Convention; and whereas, under
Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention 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 reside in a particular country 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. 2134/64, Yearbook, Vol. VII, pages 314, 328; 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 the Commission has also examined the applicant's complaint
relating to his deportation from the United Kingdom in the light of
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention; whereas the Commission has held
in previous cases that, although deportation is not as such among the
matters governed by the Convention, the deportation of a person may,
in exceptional circumstances, be contrary to the Convention and in
particular to Article 3 (Art. 3) (see for example, Application No.
3040/67, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 132, 138); whereas,
however, an examination of the present case as it has been submitted
does not disclose any appearance of such exceptional circumstances;
whereas, therefore, 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 complaints relating to the loss
of his property in the United Kingdom, an examination of the case as
it has been submitted, including an examination ex officio, equally
fails to disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set forth in the Convention and Protocols;

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 the applicant makes further complaints in relation to the
effect of deportation on his family life, the alleged refusal by the
authorities to allow him to see his son and Mrs. C. before deportation,
and the alleged refusal to allow him to marry Mrs. C. in prison;

Whereas the Commission finds that an examination of the file at the
present stage does not give the information required for determining
the question of admissibility; whereas, therefore, the Commission
decides, in accordance with Rule 45 (3) (b) of the Rules of Procedure,
to give notice of the above complaints to the United Kingdom Government
and to invite it to submit its observations on the question of
admissibility;

Whereas, in the meanwhile, the Commission decides to adjourn its
examination of these parts of the application.

Now therefore the Commission

1. Declares inadmissible, for the reasons stated above, the applicant's
complaints relating to his arrest and the alleged irregularities in the
course thereof, his conviction and sentence and the court proceedings
concerned, his deportation from the United Kingdom either as such or
in relation to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and the loss of
his property;

2. Decides to adjourn its examination as to the admissibility of the
remainder of his complaints.