THE FACTS

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

The applicant who describes himself as stateless was born in 1930 and
is at present resident in F. (Sweden). When introducing his application
he was held in detention on remand in Stockholm.

From the applicant's statements and the documents he has submitted it
appears that he was arrested on .. September 1971 on suspicion of
theft. At the same time the police seized a number of documents in his
apartment. Further documents were seized on later occasions in another
building and in the apartment.

The applicant was convicted of theft at the Stockholm District Court
(Stockholms tingsrätt) on .. September 1971 and given a suspended
sentence. The Court also ordered that the applicant should be expelled
and forbidden to return to Sweden within ten years. Both the applicant
and the Public Prosecutor appealed but later withdrew their appeals.
The Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) therefore struck the appeals
off the list of cases on .. December 1971.

The applicant and two other persons then applied to the King-in-Council
(Kungl. Maj:t) that the expulsion order should be repealed but this
petition was rejected on .. January 1972.

The Provisional Authority in Stockholm (länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län)
then considered the question of how the expulsion order should be
executed. In a decision dated .. January 1972 the Provisional Authority
noted that the applicant's United States passport had been revoked and
that he had obtained a Swedish travel document. Moreover, it was
recorded that the applicant had lost his United States citizenship on
.. August 1971 after he had renounced it. The United States Embassy in
Stockholm had stated that the applicant could not be received in the
United States before the matter had been investigated and a decision
to admit him had been taken in that country. The applicant's fiancée
had submitted a copy of a draft order dated in June 1970, the
authenticity of which had not been proved. In accordance with the
relevant provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act (utlänningslagen) the
Provisional Authority referred the question of execution to the
National Board for Immigration and Naturalisation (Statens
invandrarverk) for a decision. The applicant has not indicated whether
or not any such decision has as yet been taken.

The applicant also complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner
(Justitieombudsmannen), inter alia, about the alleged refusal to allow
him to see his defence counsel. The Parliamentary Commissioner decided
on .. January 1972 that no action was called for as there was no reason
to suspect that any official who had dealt with the pre-trial
investigation had committed any error or shown negligence.

Furthermore the applicant complained to the Public Prosecutor and to
the police authorities in Stockholm alleging that he had been deprived
of certain property which had been seized by the police in connection
with his arrest and shortly afterwards. The Public Prosecutor decided
on .. April 1972 that there was no basis for prosecuting anybody for
negligence in carrying out his official duties. He noted that certain
carbons referred to in the applicant's complaint had been returned to
the applicant and that an identity card which had been shown not to
have been issued for the applicant had been forwarded to the United
States authorities. As regards the remainder of the belongings listed
by the applicant, the Public Prosecutor stated that there was no
evidence of these having been seized by the police. He found, however,
that there had been certain deficiencies in drawing up the records of
the seizure and a failure to notify the applicant without delay as to
the property which had been seized. The Public Prosecutor then referred
the matter to the Chief Constable (polismästaren) of Stockholm for such
action as he might find appropriate.

The Chief Constable decided on .. November 1972 that no action was
called for apart from drawing the attention of the police officers
concerned to the great importance of observing the strict formalities
laid down for keeping records of seizure. In particular, the records
should set out, in detail, all actions which had been taken in such a
way that the chronological order of events became clear. Moreover, the
objects should be carefully described.

In addition to the above documents the applicant has also submitted a
copy of complaint dated .. January 1972 addressed to the Parliamentary
Commissioner in which two of the applicant's friends criticized the
police investigation and the evidence produced by the police at the
trial and accused the police of bias. In particular, it was maintained
that, contrary to what had been stated at the trial, the applicant
could expect to be sentenced to a long period of imprisonment for
desertion if he was forced to return to the United States. The
applicant has not submitted any information as to the decision of the
Parliamentary Commissioner with regard to this complaint.

In a letter dated 4 December 1972 the Commission's Secretary asked the
applicant to submit at once information on the following points:

"- In what way do you allege that your expulsion to the United States
or to any other country to which you are likely to be expelled would
be contrary to any of the specific rights and freedoms defined in the
Convention or in the Protocols Nos 1 and 4?

- have you received any further information as to when your expulsion
is expected to take place and as to the country to which you will be
expelled?

- have you made any further appeal to the National Board for
Immigration and Naturalisation (Statens invandrarverk) or the
King-in-Council (Kungl. Maj:t) with regard to the execution of the
expulsion order and have any further decisions been taken in this
respect by the competent authorities?  What were the grounds for such
appeals, if any?"

The applicant was also requested to submit copies of all further
decisions concerning the execution of the expulsion order including the
decision taken by the King-in-Council on .. January 1972.

The applicant replied to these questions in a letter dated .. December
1972. He stated that he expected to be sent to the United States and
that his expulsion would result in a long period of imprisonment for
nothing more than political reasons. The applicant also said that he
and his lawyer did not know the date when the expulsion order would be
executed as the file was marked "Secret". He claimed that he had made
a desperate appeal to the National Board for Immigration and
Naturalisation without receiving any reply.
Furthermore, the applicant submitted a copy of the decision taken by
the King-in-Council of .. January 1972. The decision does not give any
reason for refusing the request.

The applicant also submitted a copy of a letter written by him on ..
January 1972 to the King-in-Council. In this letter the applicant
claimed that his return to the United States would result in life
imprisonment or, at least, many years in prison. He stated that he had
served in the United States Armed Forces for seventeen years in Korea
and Vietnam. According to the applicant he had the rank of Master
Sergeant when he fled to Sweden in July 1970. The applicant also stated
that he wanted to stay in Sweden and marry his Swedish fiancée.

In his application form and letters submitted to the Commission the
applicant has complained of the following matters:

- his alleged ill-treatment by the police at the time of his arrest on
.. September 1971;

- the alleged refusal to allow him to consult his lawyer for a period
of two weeks or to receive visits from his fiancée and friends and the
alleged withholding of all his outgoing mail while he was in detention
on remand;

- the failure of the authorities to provide him with an interpretation
from Swedish to English;

- the conduct of his trial at the District Court in particular the
alleged refusal to allow anybody but witnesses for the prosecution to
appear;

- the expulsion order as a result of which he was likely to be sent to
a country (the United States) where his life and freedom would be in
great danger;

- the alleged denial of his right to appeal;

- the seizure by the police of certain documents and other private
property belonging to him and the alleged failure of the police to
return this property;

- the failure of the authorities to deliver to him, until November 1972
four letters from a friend dated in November and December 1971;

- the detrimental effects on him and his fiancée of having to live
under the threat of the expulsion order;

The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 6 (2) and (3) (a) (c) and
(d), 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 26 and 50 of the Convention and Articles 2 and
4 of Protocol No. 4.

He claims damages to the amount of 250,000 Swedish Crowns for the loss
of property and 50,000 for having been ill-treated while in police
custody.

The applicant has also asked the Commission to request the Swedish
authorities to suspend all action until the matter before the
Commission has been settled.

THE LAW

1.   The Commission has first examined the applicant's complaints
insofar as he complains of:

(a)  his alleged ill-treatment by the police at the time of his arrest
on .. September 1971;

(b)  the alleged refusal to allow him to consult his lawyer for a
period of two weeks or to receive visits from his fiancée and friends
and the alleged withholding of all his outgoing mail while he was in
detention on remand;

(c)  the failure of the authorities to provide him with an
interpretation from Swedish to English;

(d)  the conduct of his trial at the District Court in particular the
alleged refusal to allow anybody but witnesses for the prosecution to
appear;

(e)  the seizure by the police of certain documents and other private
property belonging to him and the alleged failure of the police to
return this property.

In examining these complaints the Commission has had regard to the
provisions of Articles 3, 5 (2), 6 (1) and 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e) and
8 (Art. 3, 5-2, 6-1, 6-3-a, 6-3-b, 6-3-d, 6-3-e, 8) of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the
facts alleged by the applicant in this connection disclose any
appearance of a violation of these provisions as, under Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally
recognised rules of international law.

In the present case the applicant failed to raise these complaints
before the competent Swedish courts or authorities and has, therefore,
not exhausted the remedies available to him under Swedish law. In this
connection, the Commission observes that the various complaints made
by the applicant or his friends to the police or the Public Prosecutor
with regard to certain of these matters did not constitute effective
remedies for the purpose of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
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 the application must in
these respects be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3) of the
Convention.

2.   The applicant has further complained of the expulsion order made
by the District Court on .. November 1971 as a result of which he fears
that he will be expelled to the United States where his life and
freedom would allegedly be in great danger.

In this connection, the Commission first recalls that according to its
established case-law the right to asylum and the freedom from expulsion
are not as such included among the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention (see the decisions on the admissibility of applications No
2134/64, Yearbook, Vol. 7, p. 328, No. 1611/62, Yearbook, Vol. 8, p.
168 and No. 3040/67, Yearbook, Vol. 10, pp. 522-524).

Nevertheless, the Commission has frequently held that the expulsion of
a person may, in certain exceptional circumstances raise an issue under
the Convention and in particular under Article 3, namely, where there
are serious grounds to fear that the person concerned will be
subjected, in the State to which he is to be sent, to treatment which
is in violation of this Article (see decisions on the admissibility of
applications No. 1802/62, Yearbook, Vol. 6, p. 480 and No. 5012/71,
Collection of Decisions, Vol. 40, p. 62). The Commission here notes
that, in accordance with Swedish law, the order did not specify to
which country the applicant was to be expelled but the Commission has
considered the obvious possibility that he might be expelled to the
United States of America. However, the applicant withdrew his appeal
to the Court of Appeal against the District Court's expulsion order.
He has therefore not exhausted the remedies available to him under
Swedish law in respect of the order itself. The Commission again finds
that there are no special circumstances which could have absolved him
from the duty, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, to exhaust
all domestic remedies. In particular there is not the slightest
evidence to support the applicant's assertion that he was denied his
right to appeal. On the contrary, he appears to have abandoned his
appeal without any form of coercion.

3.   The Commission has next considered the question whether the
execution of the expulsion order should be looked at as a separate
matter having regard to the fact that in this respect the applicant had
apparently exhausted the remedies available to him under Swedish law.

However, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine this
question in the present case as even assuming that the execution of the
order should be considered separately, the applicant's complaint in
this respect, which again is only to be considered under Article 3
(Art. 3), is, in any event, inadmissible on other grounds.

In the present case there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the
applicant would be subjected to any such treatment if he were to be
sent to the United States which itself is not certain but, as mentioned
above, is obviously possible. In this connection the Commission refers
to its decision on the admissibility of applications Nos. 3803/68 and
3804/68 v. Sweden (unpublished) with regard to the complaint made under
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention by two deserters from the United
States Armed Forces whose expulsion from Sweden had been ordered and
who expected to be charged with desertion if they were sent to the
United States.

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.

4.   The applicant has further complained of the alleged delay in
delivering certain letters to him and of the detrimental effects on him
and his fiancée by reason of his having to live under the threat of the
expulsion order.

It is true that Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention secures to
everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.

However, an examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has
been submitted, does not disclose any situation which could amount to
a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and
in particular in the above Article.

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.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION
INADMISSIBLE