THE FACTS

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

The applicant is a citizen of Syria, born on .. April 1943. Since ...
1966 he had been resident in Vienna.

On .. July 1969, the Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für
Strafsachen) in Vienna sentenced him to four months' severe
imprisonment (schwerer Kerker) for attempting larceny. At the same
time, the Court ordered the applicant's deportation to Syria, and
revoked the suspension of a previous sentence to fourteen days'
detention. Furthermore, the applicant had been charged with seventeen
different traffic offenses.

After having served his sentence, the applicant remained in custody
with a view to his forthcoming deportation. It was then that he
addressed himself to the Commission, alleging that in Syria he had been
condemned by default to eleven years' imprisonment for political
reasons and that, therefore, deportation to his home country would have
serious consequences for him.

After his first and only letter of 9 February 1970, by which he lodged
his complaint, the applicant has not manifested himself again and he
failed, in particular, to reply to the letter of 19 February 1970 by
which the Commission's Secretary requested him to submit further
particulars about his case and to specify in what way he considered the
Convention had been violated.

THE LAW

The applicant claims to be a political opponent of the regime in his
country. He has submitted that deportation to Syria, as ordered by the
Regional Criminal Court in Vienna, would have serious consequences for
him, particularly since he had been condemned by default by a Syrian
Court for a crime alleged by him to be of a political nature.

The Commission, in accordance with its established jurisprudence (see
applications Nos. 4162/69, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 32, p. 87; No.
4436/70, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 35, p. 69), has observed that
although the right to be protected from extradition is not as such
covered by the Convention, the possible consequences to an applicant
of such extradition might in particular circumstances raise the
question of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention for
which the extraditing country might be held responsible.

However, 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.

While in the present case the applicant has expressly complained to the
Commission of the deportation order on the ground that he was a
political refugee, he has not shown that he has made any attempt to be
granted the status of a political refugee under the appropriate
provisions available to him in Austria, particularly under the terms
of the Federal Act of 7 March 1968 on Refugee Residence Permits
(Bundesgesetz über die Aufenthaltsberechtigung der Flüchtlinge). He can
therefore not be considered to have exhausted the remedies available
to him under Austrian law. 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 the domestic remedies at his
disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as
to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in this
respect be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION
INADMISSIBLE