THE FACTS

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

The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1919 and, when lodging
his application, he was detained in prison at G., in Austria.

On .. December 1968 the Regional Court (Landesgericht) of G. convicted
the applicant of attempted indecent assault and of the minor offense
of indecent behaviour (Verbrechen der versuchten Schàˆndung und
Schamhaftigkeit) and gave him a 15 months' prison sentence. The
applicant was found guilty of having attempted to abuse two girls aged
10 and 11 years old and of having later exposed his private parts to
other young girls. The applicant had confessed to the second offence
but denied the attempted abuse of the two girls. The Court based its
decision on the statements of the girls whose credibility was carefully
considered.

The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court
(Oberster Gerichtshof). He attacked the credibility of the statements
of the two girls on which the Court had based its judgment. He further
maintained that he had simply shown them his private parts and that
this constituted only the minor offense of indecent behaviour.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal by a judgment of ..
April 1969 the text of which was communicated to the applicant on 13
May 1969. The Court held that the credibility of the girls was beyond
doubt and that the Regional Court had given sufficient and convincing
reasons for the applicant's conviction. The Court also held that the
penalty was justified since the applicant had been previously convicted
of a similar offense.

The applicant subsequently served his sentence in the prison at G.
Apparently he requested on several occasions to be released before
serving his total sentence. He alleged that his general condition of
health was bad and that he suffered from a heart disease. However,
these requests were not successful.

The applicant now complains:

- that he was innocent and that he had been wrongly convicted of
  attempted indecent assault since his acts only constituted a minor
  offense;
- that he has been discriminated against since other persons who
  committed similar offenses did not receive such a heavy penalty;
- that his requests for release from prison before the end of his
  sentence were not successful despite the fact that he had a heart
  disease which made him incapable of serving a prison sentence.

The applicant alleges violations of Articles 6, 7 and 14 of the
Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas the applicant first complains that he was innocent and that he
was wrongly convicted of attempted indecent assault, since his acts
only constituted a minor offence only; whereas an examination of the
case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and
especially in Articles 6 and 7 (Art. 6, 7) thereof;

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 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 the applicant further complains generally, as regards the
alleged discrimination, that he has been the victim of discrimination
since other persons, who committed similar offenses, were not given
such a heavy penalty as he had received; whereas, the Commission first
finds that the right to a particular penalty is not, as such, included
among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention,
Whereas, however, it has considered this complaint under the provisions
of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) read in conjunction with
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention; whereas it is to be recalled
that the European Court of Human Rights found that the guarantee of
Article 14 (Art. 14) "has no independent existence in the sense that,
under the terms of Article 14 (Art. 14), it relates solely to rights
and freedoms set forth in the Convention, nevertheless a measure, which
in itself is in conformity with the requirements of the Article
enshrining the right or freedom in question, may however infringe this
Article when read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) for the
reason that it is of a discriminatory nature" (see European Court of
Human Rights Case "relating to certain aspects of the law on the use
of languages in education in Belgium (merits), judgment of 23 July
1968, p. 33) and later stated that "the principle of equality of
treatment is violated if the distinction has no objective and
reasonable justification" (p. 34);

Whereas, the Commission observes that the length of a sentence given
for a criminal offense depends on the particular facts of each case and
on the character and record of the offender;

Whereas these elements, which obviously vary in different cases,
justify and indeed make inevitable, different treatment of the
different persons concerned;

Whereas, the Court had before it the particular elements of the present
case which included the circumstances of the offenses committed and the
record of the applicant who had been convicted previously of a similar
offense; whereas the Commission finds that a decision, as regards
length of sentence, based on such elements has an objective and
reasonable justification and does not therefore violate its principle
of equality of treatment;

Whereas, in the present case the applicant has not shown that the Court
did not have regard, when fixing his sentence, to the particular
elements of his case mentioned above;

Whereas, the Commission therefore finds that there is no appearance of
discrimination against the applicant in this respect and thus no
violation of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the
Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14); whereas it
follows that this part of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas the applicant also complains that he was not given adequate
medical treatment in prison; whereas the Commission has examined this
complaint in relation to Article 3 and Article 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the
Convention;

Whereas, however, it finds that an examination of the case at the
present state of the file, including an examination ex officio, does
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the above Articles;

Whereas also this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded;

Whereas, finally, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the
Austrian authorities refused to release him conditionally from prison
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 (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 the right to a conditional release
from prison is not as such included among the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission
refers to its previous decision No. 1421/62 of 19 June 1963; 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)

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE