THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant states that he is an Egyptian citizen, born in 1945. He is at present detained in prison in C. From his statements and the documents submitted by him, it appears that, on .. March 1969, the police authorities of C. ordered the applicant's expulsion from the Federal Republic of Germany. On .. March the police authorities requested the District Court (Amtsgericht) of C to order the applicant's detention pending his deportation but this was refused by the Court on .. March. The applicant had stated that he intended to go to Kuwait where his father lived. He also filed a petition for asylum and was permitted to stay in Germany until May 1969. On .. October 1969, acting on a new application by the police authorities, the District Court decided that the applicant should now be detained pending his deportation. His appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision was dismissed by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of C. on .. November 1969. The Regional Court noted the statement by the police authorities that the applicant had gone into hiding and it further observed that his petition for asylum had been finally rejected and his efforts to obtain a passport through the Embassy of Afghanistan has so far remained unsuccessful. A new order for the applicant's continued detention pending deportation was made on .. November 1969. The applicant states that, being a pacifist, he does not wish to be deported to Egypt where he would be obliged to serve in the army in the war against Israel or be sentenced to imprisonment. His fiancée lives in Germany and he would like to stay there or in a neighbouring state. He also complains that he is not permitted to drive in his own car, with all his property, to another country and observes that he could go to Jugoslavia, together with his Jugoslavian fiancée. THE LAW Whereas the applicant complains that his imminent expulsion to Egypt would result in his being obliged to serve in the Egyptian Army in the war against Israel or being sentenced to imprisonment; Whereas the Commission observes that, although the right to political asylum and the right of a person not to be expelled are not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, the Contracting Parties nevertheless have agreed to restrict the free exercise of their powers under general international law, including the power to control the entry and exit of all aliens, to the extent and within the limits of the obligations which they have assumed under the Convention; Whereas, therefore, the expulsion of a person may, in certain exceptional cases, be contrary to the Convention and, in particular, to Article 3 (Art. 3) thereof (see the Commission's decision of 17 December 1969, on the admissibility of Application No. 4162/69); Whereas he Commission has accordingly examined whether the applicant's expulsion to Egypt might constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention by grossly violating or suppressing his basic human rights, such as guaranteed by the Convention (see the Commission's constant jurisprudence, eg. Applications Nos. 1802/63 - Yearbook of the European Convention of Human Rights, Vol. 6, page 480 - No. 2396/65 - Baouya v. Federal Republic of Germany - and No. 3040/67 - Collection of Decisions of the Commission, Vol. 22, page 138); whereas the Commission does not find that the facts alleged by the applicant would, if true, amount to such a violation; Whereas, in particular, his obligation to perform military service cannot be considered to violate any of his basic human rights, such as guaranteed by the Convention; whereas, in this connection, the Commission has also had regard to Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention; Whereas it is true that paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 4-2) provides that no-one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour; Whereas, however, according to paragraph (3) (Art. 4-3), the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include "any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service"; Whereas it follows that the obligation to perform military service must in principle be regarded as being compatible with the provisions of the Convention with the result that the applicant's expulsion to Egypt can in no way be considered to constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention on the ground that he would be obliged to serve in the Egyptian army; Whereas, further, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, irrespective of any consideration of his expulsion to a particular country, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant's right to leave the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 2 of the Fourth Protocol (P4-2) to the Convention; Whereas it follows that 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