CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 31 mai 1972

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  THE FACTS   The facts now under consideration relate to an alleged interference with the applicant's effective exercise of his right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention.   The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in India in 1923 and now detained in H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubs. In the proceedings before the Commission he was represented by his wife, Mrs. X.   His application concerned an allegation, that during criminal proceedings for fraud, his counsel spoke privately to the judge and then put improper pressure on the applicant to plead guilty. The Commission considered it on 23 March 1972 and decided that the evidence submitted did not show that the applicant had been subjected to any such improper pressure. The complaint was therefore declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention. Insofar as the applicant could be said to complain of the proceedings on sentence, that complaint was also declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   The Commission finally noted that the applicant's case had been presented on his behalf by his wife. She had stated that he was unable to present his own case. The Commission considered this allegation under Article 25 (1) in fine of the Convention which states that the Government concerned undertakes not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of petition. It noted that a reply was awaited to a letter from the Secretary asking for further particulars of this complaint and it decided to adjourn its examination of the alleged interference with the effective exercise of the applicant's right of individual petition under Article 25.   The applicant's wife has now made further submissions on this point. The position appears to be as follows:   The application was first introduced by Mrs. X. in April 1971. On 23 June 1971 the applicant himself wrote to the Commission confirming his wife's authority to act on his behalf.   On 16 February 1972, after a preliminary examination of the case by a group of three members on 11 February (Rule 45, 1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure), Mrs. X. was asked to explain, inter alia, why her husband was unable to present his own case. She replied on 21 February:   "The reason my husband is not applying himself is that, he has depended on British justice all along ... My husband ... wrote to the Home Office asking them if he could apply to your good selves, they refused and said that his wife could do so, so I myself knowing my husband's position wrote to you."   Mrs X. wrote again on 6 March 1972:   "As far as my husband's position is in prison establishment, in which he is placed, it would be quite impossible for him to gather the necessary information, documentary or otherwise, to present his petition in its fullness, to give you a close picture of the situation in question, therefore, to assist you fully to reach a decision that was fair and correct for him and the authorities concerned. I must say the prison authorities in his establishment are most kind and helpful within the limits of the regulations allowed to them. Indeed they are most helpful within the limits. It is therefore fallen on to me to fulfil those wifely duties to aid and protect my husband in his present position."   On 10 March the Secretary to the Commission asked Mrs. X. to submit a copy of the letter her husband had written to the Home Office. She replied on 18 March:   "I have submitted all the documentary evidence to you and have replied your questions to the best of my knowledge. I have no further evidence to produce. I am not very sure about the correspondence with the Home Office in connection with the application to your goodselves, I have to confirm with my husband...".   On 30 March Mrs. X. was informed by the Commission's Secretary that the application had been declared inadmissible and she was asked whether she wished to add anything to what she had already said about correspondence with the Home Office. Her reply, dated 5 April 1972, was as follows:   "... I confirmed with my husband about the petition to your goodselves, he says that, when he was in the Scrubs Prison he had to ask the prison authorities to apply on his behalf to Home Office for permission to apply to you, but it was refused and they mentioned that the wife had a right to do so if she so wished.   Direct correspondence in this matter was prohibited by the authorities and resulting from this confirmation, I applied to your goodselves as I am free to do so."   On 12 April 1972 the Secretary wrote to Mrs X. attempting to clarify this and requesting copies of any correspondence. Mrs X's letter, dated 18 April, contained the following passages:   "I have explained to you that my husband or anyone else did not have any correspondence in writing with the Home Office, so therefore unfortunately I cannot forward to you any copies of correspondence as requested.   I was further informed by my husband that the Governor of the Scrubs Prison refused altogether the idea of my husband corresponding with the Home Office and the prison officer gave him the wrong information that they had corresponded by phone or any other mean and that the Home Office is not aware of the application to you, I don't think that it is necessary because I am applying and not my husband, as I am free to do so."   THE LAW   Mrs. X. has given various explanations of why it was necessary for her to present the application on behalf of her husband. The only positive reason given to explain the fact that Mr. X. did not originally present his own case was that "he had depended on British justice all along".   In fact Mrs. X. applied to the Commission on behalf of her husband and was fully able to present her husband's case. It follows that, even on the supposition that the authorities interfered with the applicant corresponding himself with the Commission, it has not been suggested that this affected adversely the presentation of his case and there is, therefore, no indication of any conduct on the part of the authorities which might be considered inconsistent with the undertaking contained in Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) in fine of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECIDES TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION