THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in ... and at present detained in prison at A. On ... 1957 he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment by the Regional Court (Landesgericht) at A. on charges of having committed indecent offenses with children. His appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on ... 1958. The following applications for a retrial were then lodged by the Applicant: (1) an application of ... 1958 which was dismissed by the Regional Court at A. on ... 1958 and, on appeal (Beschwerde), by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at A. on ... 1958 on the ground that it did not disclose any relevant new facts or evidence; (2) an application of ... 1958 which was rejected for the same reason by the Regional Court on ... 1958 and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeal on ... 1959; (3) an application of ... 1960 which was dismissed on the same ground by the Regional Court on ... 1960 and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeal on ... 1960. The decisions of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal mentioned under (1), (2) and (3) above, were taken in non-public sessions in the absence of the Applicant or his lawyer and "after hearing" ("nach Anhörung") the Public Prosecutor. The Applicant states that his Application is based on Article 26 of the Convention. He alleges that he was wrongly convicted and he claims a new trial or a reduction of his sentence. THE LAW Whereas the facts alleged by the Applicant in regard to his conviction and the proceedings concerning his first application for a retrial relate to a period prior to 3rd September, 1958, the date of the entry into force of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to Austria; whereas, in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, the said Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with respect to that Party; whereas it follows that the Application, insofar as it relates to these alleged facts, must be rejected ratione temporis; Whereas, in regard to the proceedings concerning the second and third petitions for a retrial, lodged by the Applicant with the Regional Court in ... 1958 and ... 1960 respectively, it is to be observed that, under Article 353, paragraph (2) of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung), a convicted person may, after the conclusion of criminal proceedings, lodge a petition for a retrial if he submits new facts or evidence which appear likely, either by themselves or combined with evidence previously produced, to justify his acquittal or a sentence based on a less serious criminal charge; Whereas during the proceedings concerning the examination of such petition the previous conviction remains valid and will be modified only to the extent that the petition is admitted (Articles 357 and 358 of the Code); whereas it follows that the function of the Austrian courts, in deciding such petitions in accordance with Articles 353, 357 and 358 of the Code, is not to determine a "criminal charge" against, or any "civil rights or obligations" of, the person concerned, within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, but solely to decide, after the conclusion of criminal proceedings and the conviction of the accused, whether his case should be re-opened; and whereas the proceedings relating to this question are not such as fall within the terms of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention; Whereas it follows that the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal at A., when deciding the second and third petitions for a retrial lodged by the Applicant, did not constitute tribunals to which the terms of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention could apply; whereas, therefore in regard to this part of the Application, an examination of the case as it has been submitted including an examination ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention; whereas, consequently, this part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention; Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE."