THE FACTS The facts of the case may be summarised as follows: The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1930 and was when submitting his application to the Commission detained in the Vienna Prison hospital. He is now resident at Klagenfurt. The application concerned three separate complaints namely (a) the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant compensation for the applicant's detention on remand in Austria from .. November 1965 to .. December 1969; (b) his conviction by the Vienna Regional Court of .. April 1972; and (c) his detention on remand in Austria from .. April 1972 until .. December 1972. Parts (a) and (b) of the application have been declared inadmissible by the Commission's partial decision of 31 May 1973. With regard to his complaints under Court above, the applicant stated his case as follows: The applicant was arrested on .. May 1971 under the suspicion of having committed fraud. On .. August 1971 he was released on bail of 200,000 Austrian schillings (approximately 45,000 French francs). On .. April 1972, after his conviction by the Trial Court, the same Court decided that the applicant should be detained on remand pending his appeal to the Supreme Court. The Trial Court gave the following reasons for his decision. At first it stated that the danger of the applicant's absconding existed and reference was made to certain proceedings in Wiener Neustadt in 1963 in the course of which the applicant had been released on the condition that he reported regularly to the police and the Trial Court. It is said that the applicant did not fulfil this condition and disappeared under a false name in order to escape arrest. The Court went on to say that the applicant had no really fixed abode in Austria, since he changed his domicile continuously and did not observe the general legal obligation to report any change of domicile to the administration (Meldepflicht) and that he had indicated that his permanent residence was Zurich, where his wife and his three children lived. It was also said that the overall part of the applicant's property was situated in Switzerland and in Italy, and that his assets in Austria were insignificant. The Court also stated that the applicant after his release on bail in August 1971, made, with the consent of the Court, several journeys abroad and was once arrested in Italy under the suspicion of fraud. The Court also mentioned that the danger of flight had increased as a consequence of the applicant's conviction and the four years' sentence, and that bail of 200,000 Austrian schillings was no longer sufficient to prevent the applicant from absconding. On .. May 1972 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) confirmed on the applicant's appeal, the Lower Court's decision, for the same reasons as set out in the Trial Court's decision. On .. May 1972 the applicant requested his release from the Vienna Regional Court. He stated that the danger of his flight did not exist, and that the 1963 incident was the consequence of a mistake of the Wiener Neustadt Court which had served the summons of the applicant to the wrong lawyer, so that the former did not know that he was summoned to appear in court. The applicant further indicated that he had always in the past observed the conditions of his release, and that he had regularly reported to the police. He then stressed his very bad state of health and mentioned an expert opinion made by the Vienna Institute for Forensic Medicine during his 1969 trial. He also stated that he had been, for almost three years, in detention on remand, and that, consequently, he could expect that this would be considered when he asked for a pardon. The applicant offered an increased bail of 250,000 Austrian schillings and to deposit his passport with the police. He finally stated that his relations to foreign countries were limited to Switzerland and Italy and that a flight into these two countries would be senseless, since well applied extradition agreements existed between these countries and Austria. On .. June 1972 the Regional Court's Judges' Chamber (Ratskammer) rejected the applicant's request. The Court held that the Appeals Court had previously confirmed that the danger of the applicant's absconding existed, and that the situation meanwhile had not changed. On .. June 1972 the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. He repeated the reasons of his request of .. May 1972. No details are, however, submitted as to the decision of this Court. On .. July 1972 the applicant again requested his release on bail, but on .. October 1972 the above Judges' Chamber again refused to grant this request. The Court referred to the danger of flight and then dealt with the applicant's allegation that the continuing detention on remand would cause serious and lasting injuries to his health. The Court said that this allegation was unfounded in view of an opinion of the above-mentioned Institute for Forensic Medicine dated .. October 1972, according to which the applicant was fit for detention provided that his state of health was supervised in the Vienna Prison hospital (where he was then detained). The Court then mentioned that the applicant could not invoke Section 5 of the new Execution of Sentences Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz), since this was only to be applied mutatis mutandis on prisoners on remand. For the decision whether a person should be remanded in custody, and whether this detention should continue Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had to be applied exclusively. On .. November 1972 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal. He challenged the finding of the Judges' Chamber that Section 5 of the above Execution of Sentences Act was not applicable to him and insisted that this section should be applied. According to this a prisoner must be released if his detention is impossible because of his physical state, or because of illness. He mentioned that he had been examined by an expert on .. October 1972, who confirmed that he suffered from a disease of his heart, and that his general condition was reduced. The applicant then indicated that he had suffered from three cardiac infarctions in the past and that the last of these infarctions was the reason for his release from detention on remand in 1968. The applicant stressed that all this was part of his medical file and was confirmed by several experts. As regards the medical examination of .. October 1972 he observed that the examining doctor did not even made an electrocardiograph and that, consequently, he could not really give a diagnosis on the applicant's condition. He concluded that it was beyond doubt that his health was in a very bad condition, that there was an imminent danger of his suffering a fourth infarction, and that he could not get adequate treatment in the prison hospital. On .. November 1972 the applicant suffered from a stroke (cerebral apoplexy). On .. November 1972 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It referred to the unchanged situation as to the applicant's danger of absconding. It also dealt with the applicant's fitness for detention and stated that it had before it a report from the prison hospital that the applicant on .. November suffered from a cerebral apoplexy as a consequence of which he was partly paralysed and was transferred to a neurological department of the University Hospital. The Court then telephoned the head of this department, Professor R., who said that the stroke was slight and that the paralysis was simulated by the applicant. The same doctor also reported that the applicant had certainly not suffered from any of the alleged three heart infarctions, although it could not be excluded that he had been near to them. The Court of Appeal, on the basis of this information, concluded that the applicant's attitude was an attempted disguise of a slight stroke (Tarnungsversuch eines leichten Schlaganfalls) and that, consequently, it was superfluous to order an electrocardiograph for his heart. The Court found that the applicant was fit for detention; it did, however, not deal with the question whether Section 5 of the above Execution of Sentences Act was applicable to a person remanded in custody. On .. December 1972 the applicant again requested his release, but on .. December 1972 the Judges' Chamber' of the Regional Court dismissed this request. The Court mentioned the Court of Appeal's decision of .. November 1972 in respect to the danger of flight, and to the applicant's state of health. It stated, moreover, that the applicant's allegations that he was paralysed and could not move his right arm and leg so that he had to remain seated in an invalid chair, and that he had suffered from three heart infarctions were altogether incredible. On .. December 1972 the Supreme Court gave its final judgment reducing the applicant's sentence to three years' imprisonment but dismissing his plea of nullity. It appears that, on .. August 1973, the Court of Appeal decided that the applicant was no longer fit for detention and on .. August 1973 he was set free. Complaints The applicant complained under part (a) that he had been refused compensation for his unjustified detention on remand from .. November 1965 until .. December 1965 and .. February 1966 until .. January 1968. He complained under part (b) about his conviction of .. April 1972 and stated that the above criminal proceedings, although they had ended with his acquittal, had been taken into account in the second proceedings, and that several of his witnesses had not been heard by the Trial Court. Finally, the applicant complained under part (c) about his detention on remand after his conviction which was, in his submission, unjustified as no danger of flight existed and since he was unfit for detention. He alleged violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The Commission considered the application on 31 May 1973 and, by a partial decision, declared certain of the applicant's complaints inadmissible, namely those under (a) and (b) above. The Commission found that the complaint under Article 5 (5) of the Convention that the Austrian courts had refused to pay compensation for his detention on remand from .. November 1965 until .. December 1965, and from February .. 1966 until .. January 1968 was, in the circumstances, incompatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione materiae and should therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 27 (2), of the Convention. The Commission further found that in regard to the complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention that the trial court in the 1972 criminal proceedings against him had taken into account, and relied upon, criminal proceedings which had ended with his acquittal in 1969, the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies (Article 26 of the Convention) and his complaint should therefore be rejected under Article 27 (3), of the Convention. Furthermore, insofar as the applicant had made various complaints relating to his conviction and sentence and to the court proceedings concerned, his application was manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention. However, insofar as the applicant had alleged a violation of Article 5 of the Convention by reason of his detention on remand from .. April 1972 until .. December 1972, and had submitted that this detention was unjustified as no danger of flight existed and as he was medically unfit for detention, the Commission decided to adjourn its further examination of the admissibility of this complaint. In the meanwhile it gave notice of this part of the application - in accordance with Rule 45, 3 b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (old version) - to the Austrian Government and invited them to submit their written observations on the question of admissibility. These observations have been sent to Commission on 8 August 1973. The applicant replied on 15 September 1973. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 1. The respondent Government first made submissions concerning the facts of the case. In this respect they quoted extracts from the decision of the Vienna Regional Court, dated .. April 1972, and the decisions of the Vienna Court of Appeal, dated .. May and .. November 1972, relating to the applicant's continued detention on remand. The respondent Government underlined that the courts had consistently found that a danger of flight existed and that the applicant's state of health, during the entire period of his detention on remand, had been continuously considered by the courts in consultation with the medical authorities. In addition to this the Government pointed out that there was another criminal procedure pending against the applicant which was still in the stage of preliminary investigations. The Government then made submissions with regard to the admissibility of the remaining part of the application. They maintained first that Article 5 (3) of the Convention should not be interpreted in a way so as to make the requirement of "reasonable time" also depend on subjective conditions relating to the applicant's personal situation - as, for example, in the present case his state of health. Article 5 (3) of the Convention should only be considered in relation to objective facts directly connected with the proceedings of the case. In this connection the Government referred to the following passage in the European Court's judgment in the Neumeister Case: "The Court is likewise of the opinion that, in determining in a given case whether or not the detention of an accused person exceeds a reasonable limit, it is for the national judicial authorities to seek all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty". (paragraph 5 of THE LAW). Thus, the two elements which had to be weighed under Article 5 (3) of the Convention are the respect of the right to liberty on the one hand and the public interest on the other. However, the right to liberty is a constant quantity independent of personal circumstances and, in the same way, the applicant's state of health was therefore irrelevant for the considerations of the public interest weighing in favour of a continuation of his detention on remand. The Government maintained that this view was completely in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Wemhoff, Neumeister, Stögmüller and Matznetter Cases in regard to Article 5 (3) of the Convention. It followed that the subjective case of a person was not relevant for an examination of "reasonable time" if that state existed independently of the applicant's detention, whereas it was quite relevant where his subjective state had been caused by the detention and was therefore its direct result. The respondent Government finally submitted that there was no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant had been detained in the Vienna Prison hospital. His allegations concerning the three cardiac infarctions were not true and the slight stroke might be considered as having been simulated. In this respect the Government referred to Dec. Adm. No. 1628/72 (Collection 12, p. 67) and pointed out that the applicant had been, during the entire period of his detention on remand, under permanent and adequate medical care. The respondent Government concluded that, in their submission, the remainder of the application was manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible under Article 27 (2), of the Convention. 2. The applicant in his reply of 15 December 1973 first rejected as being incorrect certain observations of the respondent Government relating to the facts of his case. He submitted, in particular, that (a) he had been discharged in two proceedings by the Vienna Regional Court and the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court; (b) he never used foreign identity papers, and (c) he had never broken a solemn undertaking. The applicant added that his journeys abroad could not be held against him because they had been sanctioned by the Court and he had always returned punctually. Similarly it was incorrect for the respondent Government to say that the detention on remand had been upheld on account of other proceedings. The applicant admitted that a preliminary investigation had been instituted against him for an offence of negligent bankruptcy and an offence under the General Social Security Act but this indictment had not been upheld by the Court of Appeal. In regard to his fitness for detention on remand the applicant alleged that the observations of the respondent Government were also incorrect. Concerning his state of health, he referred to his cardiac infarction which had been confirmed, after several months of detention without sufficient medical care, by a specialist at the Vienna Institute for Forensic Medicine who had nevertheless found him to be fit for detention. The applicant emphasised that this diagnosis had been given without an electrocardiogram and that for this reason he had appealed to the Court of Appeal. Moreover, on .. November 1972 he had suffered a stroke which, according to he medical report of the court doctor, rendered him unfit for work (permanent disablement within the meaning of the General Social Security Act). The applicant also queried the statement of the Austrian Government that the Court of Appeal had telephoned the neurologist Professor R. on .. November 1972 before taking its decision, because it was inconceivable that a neurologist should have alleged, without the aid of an electrocardiogram or the results of a series of other tests which should have been performed, that he had suffered no infarction and that the stroke had only been slight. The applicant underlined that he received no medical treatment whatsoever between .. November 1972 and .. January 1973. Between .. February and .. March 1973 he had been examined by several specialists in the neurological hospital "A.R." at his own expense. In this hospital the following tests had been made: (a) a lumbar puncture (b) an angiocardiogram (c) an electroencephalogram (d) an aortic arch (e) a Roth's eye test (f) an eye pressure measurement (g) a vascular test (h) an isotopic analysis (i) a front wall and a rear wall ECG A successful Xenox (obstruction of the rear carotic artery) which had been made before had shown insufficient circulation to the left brain, which had caused necrosis of the left brain cells. According to the applicant the results of these tests showed that there could have been no question of any simulation on his part. Moreover, due to the lack of treatment his illness had reached such a degree of severity that the brain cells have been affected in many ways. The applicant submitted that, as a result of the insufficient medical care during his detention, he suffered two further strokes on .. April 1973 and .. May 1973 which led to a paralysis of the right eye muscle and a neurogenic bladder disorder. Accordingly, on .. August 1973 the Court of Appeal had confirmed his unfitness for detention and ordered his release. The applicant submitted that, at the time of this decision, his health and physical well-being had suffered such harm that there was now no longer any hope of his recovering his capacity for work. In his opinion this state of affairs had been brought about by his unjustified arrest on .. April 1972. He therefore appealed to the Commission to declare his application admissible. THE LAW 1. The remainder of this application concerns the applicant's complaints relating to his detention from .. April 1972 to December 1972 with regard to which he had submitted that it was unjustified as no danger of flight existed and as he was medically unfit for any detention. The Commission has considered this complaint first under Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention which provides that everyone "arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article (Art. 5-1-c)... shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial". In this connection it noted that the period, which is the other subject of the applicant's complaint, began with his arrest on .. April 1972 being also the date of his conviction at first instance by the Regional Criminal Court in Vienna, and ended on .. December 1972 which was the date of the final decision by the Supreme Court. The European Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms decided in the "Wemhoff" Case that the period to be taken into consideration for the assessment wether or not the applicant's detention violated the provisions of Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention started with the accused person's arrest and ended with his conviction at first instance. In the European Court's reasoning it was clear that after that date he was no longer detained in accordance with Article 5 (1) (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention, namely for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, but was a person detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention (European Court of Human Rights "Wemhoff" Case, judgment of 27 June 1968, paragraph 9 of THE LAW). It is true that, in the Ringeisen Case, the Commission questioned the general applicability of the above jurisprudence in the special circumstances of that case. It submitted the issue to the European Court which, in that case, did not consider it necessary to pronounce itself on that point as it found, for other reasons, that the applicant's detention was covered by Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (see Commission's Report of 19 March 1970, p. 39 and European Court of Human Rights "Ringeisen" judgment of 16 July 1971, paragraph 109). However, in a number of cases subsequently considered by the Commission the above jurisprudence of the European Court in the "Wemhoff" Case has been followed (see Commission's Report of 6 October 1970 in the Jentzsch Case, p. 12, with further references) and there is nothing in the present case which might lead the Commission to take a different course. The present applicant's detention from .. April 1972 to .. December 1972 was not therefore detention in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 (1) (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention with the consequence that Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention is not applicable to that period of detention. It follows that the applicant's complaints, if considered under Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. 2. The Commission has further considered the applicant's above complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention according to which no one "shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". In this connection the Commission noted that, during the entire period of detention which is under consideration in this case, the applicant has been under close medical supervision at the prison hospital where he was detained although it appears that no electrocardiogram examination was made. Furthermore, his state of health has been examined, with a view to his fitness for detention, first by the Institute for Forensic Medicine and subsequently, after he had suffered a stroke, by Professor R. of the Neurological Department of the Vienna University Hospital. As a result of these medical examinations it was found that his illness was not such as to render him unfit for detention provided that the supervision of his state of health continued. On his side, the applicant has not shown that the supervision of his state of health has not been duly carried out. In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant's treatment during his detention, particularly having regard to the constant supervision of his health, did not in any way constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. An examination of the case as it has been submitted does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention and particularly of the above Article. It follows that the applicant's complaints, if considered under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.