The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised
as follows:

From his vague statements it appears that in September 1967 the
applicant became involved in a fight with two other men, resulting in
a pistol wound on his temple. After the fight he was arrested and
sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, apparently for robbery.

The applicant mentions that the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof)
rejected his appeal or plea of nullity on .. November 1969 without
giving him the opportunity of defending his case personally. Only a
lawyer was appointed for his defence. The applicant has not submitted
any documents relating to his case, nor has he given more detailed
information as to the reason of his arrest and his conviction.

He complains that he was wrongly convicted on the basis of false
evidence given against him. He states that already in 1947 and in 1961
he has been wrongly convicted and sentenced.

The applicant mainly complains of ill-treatment given to him by the
police after his arrest and by the officers in prison.

He alleges that after his arrest, five policemen ill-treated him. They
banged his head on the floor and kicked him. As a result of this
ill-treatment, and not because of the injury caused by the pistol shot,
he practically lost his eyesight. The prison authorities, as well as
the District Court (Kreisgericht) at W., refuse to have him examined
and treated in an eye clinic. They keep him alone without employment
or pastimes in a cell where he is living in permanent darkness.

He also alleges that the prisoners have to stand naked in the corridors
when the cells are inspected and that after one of these inspections
he found all his belongings on the floor of the cell and two packets
of tobacco missing.

He further alleges that the prison warders made four attempts to murder
him. Once they handcuffed him and thereby cut the blood supply
(Schlagader) in his right arm. Another time they pressed a handful of
steel material (Stahlsplendan) into his mouth and afterwards he was not
given any food for ten days. A third attempt at murder was made on ..
November 1969, when he was forced to sleep in the arrest cell in the
basement of the prison on a stone bed without a mattress and blankets.
Finally, another attempt was made by throwing open the door of his cell
unexpectedly which hit him on his temple.

Alleging a violation of most of the Article of the Convention, the
applicant requests the Commission to help him.


Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was wrongly
convicted and sentenced, 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. 458/69 (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 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 he was ill-treated
in prison, the Commission finds that an examination of the file at the
present state 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 its Rules of Procedure,
to give notice thereof to the Government of Austria 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 this part of the application;

Now therefore the Commission