CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 janvier 1998

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 27521/95                       by Walter STÜRM                       against Switzerland           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 14 January 1998, the following members being present:              MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  N. BRATZA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 13 April 1995 by Walter Stürm against Switzerland and registered on 6 June 1995 under file No. 27521/95;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Swiss citizen, born in 1942 and currently detained in Martigny prison in Switzerland.   Before the Commission he is represented by Ms B. Hug, a lawyer practising in Zürich, and Mr Th. Burgener, a lawyer practising in Visp.         The applicant's previous Applications Nos. 20231/92, 20545/92, 23117/93 and 23223/94 concerned complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention of the length of the applicant's detention on remand; the delays of the authorities in dealing with his requests for release from detention; his request for damages; and the length of the criminal proceedings in which he was involved.   The joined applications were declared admissible on 28 June 1995.   In its report of 16 January 1996 the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been violations of Article 5 para. 3 and Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention; and that there had been no violations of Article 5 paras. 4 and 5 of the Convention.   In its Interim Resolution of 13 September 1996 the Committee of Ministers agreed with the Commission's opinion.         The present application concerns complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings in which the applicant was involved.         The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     Investigations instituted against the applicant         On 2 November 1984 the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter) of the Ering and Gundis Districts in the Canton of Valais issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on suspicion of theft of a car. The preliminary investigations against the applicant were eventually extended to over 100 offences, including theft and robbery.   In one such instance the applicant and another person had allegedly broken into a police station at Haute Nendaz in Switzerland on 22 April 1985 and stolen identity documents, whereby a third person had been injured.         On 31 August 1985 a certain R. was arrested.   At one stage, R. apparently incriminated the applicant as having been an accomplice. Following R.'s statements, investigations were undertaken in Italy which proved unsuccessful.   Upon another occasion, R. apparently stated that he had only been with the applicant "on holidays".         On 5 March 1986 the applicant was arrested in Lausanne.   On 12 March 1986 the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts ordered his detention on remand.         Following his arrest, various newspaper articles on the applicant were published.   An article in the newspaper "La Suisse" of 24 April 1985 referred to the applicant as a suspect ("suspecté"), though it quoted the Cantonal Police of the Canton of Valais as stating "no comment" on the case.   The "Tribune de Genève" referred on 25 April 1985 to his involvement (impliqué) in certain events.   The "Hébdo" questioned in respect of the events at the police station at Haute Nendaz whether this had to do with the applicant.   "La Suisse" stated in an article of 6 March 1986 that the applicant had seemingly committed certain offences ("il aurait emporté quelques 35 000 francs en tout ..."), though upon instruction of the investigating judge the police remained silent.         During the ensuing proceedings the applicant refused to express himself on the charges brought against him.   The applicant filed various requests for release from detention which were dealt with, and refused, by the Federal Court in decisions dated 9 January and 27 November 1991, 31 July, 1 September and 31 December 1992; and 9 February, 24 August and 21 December 1993.         On 1 March 1990 the applicant was confronted with R.         On 10 September 1992 the investigating judge of the Ering and Gundis Districts terminated the investigations.     Applicant's Indictment         On 16 September 1992 the Public Prosecutor filed the bill of indictment.   The latter first listed nine categories of offences of which the applicant was indicted and the respective statutory provisions of the Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) and the Federal Road Traffic Act (Strassenverkehrsgesetz).   Thus, it was stated that the applicant was indicted of having committed simple bodily injury; theft; attempted theft; aggravated robbery; damage to property; forging documents; appropriating another person's car; driving without a driving licence; and unlawfully using car number-plates.         The bill of indictment then listed on altogether 18 pages the various occasions where the applicant had committed these offences. For instance, it was stated in respect of the events at the police station in Haute Nendaz on 22 April 1985 that the applicant and R.         "pénétrèrent par effraction dans le poste de gendarmerie de la       police cantonale, à Haute-Nendaz.   Là, ils dérobèrent divers       documents officiels.   Alors que (le requérant) se trouvait à       l'extérieur des locaux, R. fut surpris par A., sergent à la       police cantonale, revenu inopinément au poste.   R. l'ayant menacé       avec son pistolet Bernardelli (calibre 7,65), A. se jeta       courageusement sur lui.   Les deux hommes tombèrent à terre et R.       tira un premier puis un second coup de feu qui atteint A. au       bras.   Le policier lâcha alors son agresseur qui s'enfuit en       menaçant encore de son pistolet O.D. et P.D. qui tentaient de       l'arrêter."     Trial before the Ering and Gundis District Court         On 22 September 1992 the President of the Ering and Gundis District Court invited the applicant to submit before 15 October 1992 any evidence which he wished to produce at the trial which was provisionally fixed for 16 and 17 November 1992.         Meanwhile, the applicant was sentenced on 30 November 1992 in separate criminal proceedings by the Jura Criminal Court to 12 years' imprisonment, inter alia, on account of robbery and theft.         The trial before the Ering and Gundis District Court took place on 29 March 1993.         On 31 March 1993 the Ering and Gundis District Court convicted the applicant for over 100 offences, inter alia, robbery, theft and damage to property, and sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment.   The judgment, mentioning 23 private parties, numbered 98 pages.         In its judgment the District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint that the bill of indictment was incomplete.   Insofar as the applicant questioned the reliability of R.'s statements, the Court referred to a psychiatric opinion which concluded that at the relevant time R. had been "completely normal" (völlig normal).   When dealing with the various offences at issue, the Court relied, inter alia, on the statements of R. and of other witnesses, on handwritten documents in the applicant's handwriting, on finger-prints and shoe-marks, and on the typical manner ("modus operandi") in which various offences had been committed.         In its judgment the District Court mentioned various instances of robbery which the applicant had committed, inter alia, at the police station at Haute Nendaz.   In this respect, the Court considered that the applicant had committed the offence jointly with R.; that he had accepted at least as a possibility that R. would use a pistol (Eventualvorsatz); that he was therefore responsible for the whole act; and that the victim, A. had been injured as a result of the shot.         In view of the conviction by the Jura Criminal Court which had then not yet entered into legal force, the District Court pronounced the sentence subject to Section 350 of the Penal Code.   According to this provision, if a person is convicted of different offences by different courts, the court which has pronounced the most severe punishment shall determine the entire punishment.     Appeal proceedings before the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais         The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Valais, complaining, inter alia, that the bill of indictment had been insufficiently motivated, that there had been various procedural errors in the taking of evidence, and that the court had relied on R.'s statements although the latter had stated, at the outset that he had not committed any offences together with the applicant, and that he had "only been on holidays with him".   The applicant also requested the hearing of various witnesses.   The Court of Appeal had full powers to decide on all aspects of the case.         The appeal hearing before that Cantonal Court took place on 30 May and 1 June 1994.         On 1 June 1994 the Cantonal Court pronounced its judgment.   It partly upheld the applicant's appeal in that he was acquitted of certain offences, inter alia, of damage to property.   On the other hand, the Court convicted him of altogether 95 offences.   The Court considered, for instance, that the applicant had committed robbery when obtaining official documents, among them identity documents, from the police station at Haute Nendaz, and thereby injuring a third person. As a result, the applicant was sentenced to ten and a half years' imprisonment.         In its judgment the Court dismissed the applicant's request to hear R., as the latter had already been heard during the investigations and at the trial before the District Court.   Moreover, R. and the applicant had been confronted with one another.   Thus, the applicant had had the possibility of putting questions to R., but had failed to do so.   In respect of the allegedly insufficient bill of indictment, the Court found that after pronouncement of the judgment of the District Court the applicant no longer claimed that he was unaware of the various charges.   The Court also assessed the value of the evidence taken and the incriminating statements made.   Proceedings before the Federal Court         On 7 September 1994 the applicant filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde, recours en droit public) with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) in which he complained, inter alia, of a breach of his right to a fair hearing, of the arbitrary application of cantonal law, and of the arbitrary appreciation of evidence.   He also requested his release from detention on remand.   The applicant furthermore filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde, pourvoi en nullité) in which he complained of the incorrect legal qualification of the various offences, and of the sentence.         On 17 November 1994 the Federal Court dismissed the public law appeal.   On the same day, it also dismissed the applicant's plea of nullity.   Both judgments were served on one lawyer of the applicant on 20 December 1994; the other lawyer received them on 21 December 1994.         In its detailed judgment on the applicant's public law appeal, numbering 33 pages, the Federal Court noted at the outset that the applicant had been able to consult the various police files.   Insofar as the applicant complained that the investigating authorities might have breached their duty of confidentiality by disclosing information to the press, the Court found that these issues fell to be examined in disciplinary proceedings, but had manifestly not influenced the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant.   The Court also considered that no procedural rules had been breached during the investigations and in particular in the establishment of the various police reports and in the hearing of the various witnesses.         The Court then dealt with the applicant's complaint of a breach of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention in that the investigating authorities had disclosed information on the proceedings to the press.   The Court found that the investigating authorities had a duty to inform the public as to suspicions against certain persons.   Insofar as the applicant complained that the courts based themselves on a particular manner ("modus operandi") in which he had committed various offences, the Court considered that this information stemmed from R., and that the applicant had not been convicted solely on the basis of this information.         In respect of the allegedly incomplete bill of indictment, the Federal Court found that this complaint was inadmissible as not complying with the statutory requirements for filing such a complaint. In any event, the bill of indictment need not separately state the legal qualification of every offence mentioned.   The Court also considered that the applicant had had sufficient opportunity both before the District Court and the Cantonal Court of Appeal to request the taking of evidence, and that the assessment of the evidence concerned had not been arbitrary.   Insofar as the applicant complained that two witnesses Mas. and Maz. had only been shown photos of himself and not of other persons, the Court found that the statements of these witnesses were not the only elements leading to the applicant's conviction in respect of the particular offence concerned.         In its judgment on the applicant's plea of nullity, the Federal Court found, inter alia, that when the applicant had broken into the police station at Haute Nendaz, he had obtained identity documents which were not without value; in particular, such documents could be sold in criminal circles.   Even if the applicant intended to keep thedocuments for himself, he had had the requisite intention to enrich himself, as he was relieved from purchasing such documents among criminal circles.         The applicant's request for the reopening of the Federal Court proceedings was dismissed by the Federal Court on 7 March 1995. Insofar as the applicant complained that the documents obtained at the police station at Haute Nendaz had not been identity papers, the Court found that the applicant had failed to complain thereof in his public law appeal before the Federal Court.   Moreover, the applicant could not seriously claim that he had broken into the police station without having had the intention of enriching himself.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant raises various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the incomplete state of the case-file prepared in the various court proceedings.   a)     The applicant complains that he was convicted on the basis of his finger-prints and shoe-marks.   No confirmation of such prints could be found in the case-file.   They were only mentioned in the police-files. For instance, a police report stated that certain finger-prints belonged to the applicant.   However, neither the object and manner of the investigation nor the technical means which the police employed transpired from the reports.   The investigations should nevertheless be conducted by the investigating judge rather than the police.   The various courts did not regard it necessary to question the police.   b)     The applicant further complains that the case-file gives no explanation as to the graphological expert opinion which was prepared on the applicant's handwriting.   In particular, there was no statement as to which handwriting served as a comparison.   It was not up to him to request preparation of a further expert opinion.   c)     The applicant also complains that during the investigations various persons claimed to have recognised the applicant on the basis of photos.   Reference is made in particular to the witnesses Mas. and Maz.   However, the applicant claims that it does not transpire from the case-file that photos other than those of the applicant were shown to these persons.   It is also unclear, how the authorities proceeded when asking the various persons to identify the applicant.   2.     The applicant raises various complaints under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the various police reports, containing information on finger-prints and shoe-marks, on the graphological expert opinion, and on statements of third persons.   a)     He submits that this information should not have been employed by the various courts as evidence.   In fact, it should have been discussed before court in the presence of the applicant.   It does not suffice that, as the Federal Court stated, the applicant was free to prove the contrary.   It is up to the authorities to prove that the applicant is guilty.   b)     The applicant complains that he could only insufficiently put questions to the expert and the third persons who testified in his case.   Moreover, it was up to the authorities, not to him, to invite the relevant persons to appear before court.   3.     The applicant raises various complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the insufficient reasons given in the various judgments.   a)     The applicant complains that the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Appeal of 1 June 1994 stated that the applicant had committed the offence of robbery at the police station of Haute Nendaz.   In this respect, it would have been essential to demonstrate that the applicant had intended to enrich himself.   However, the judgment only states that the applicant had "dérobé divers documents officiels".   It did not state precisely how the applicant should have obtained a pecuniary advantage (Vermögensvorteil).   The Federal Court's decision of 7 March 1995 was insufficient when it stated that the applicant could not seriously claim that he had entered the particular building without having had the purpose of enriching himself.   b)     The applicant points out that the investigating judge divulged confidential information to the press.   The Federal Court, while accepting that there had been a breach of confidentiality, found that the latter did not affect the criminal proceedings against the applicant; rather, that breach should be pursued in separate disciplinary proceedings.   The applicant complains that the Federal Court did not explain why the breach of confidentiality did not influence the outcome of his proceedings.   4.     The applicant raises various complaints under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention of a breach of the presumption of innocence.   a)     The applicant submits that, after the warrant of arrest was issued, a newspaper article stated that the applicant had been present when persons had broken into the police station at Haute Nendaz.   b)     The applicant complains of a report of a meeting of Swiss police of 30 March 1985 which referred to the "modus operandi" of the applicant.   However, it is unclear how such a conclusion could have been reached, particularly as the applicant had at that stage only been convicted by a Zürich court in 1972.   c)     The applicant complains that after his arrest various newspaper articles were published in which attention was drawn to the applicant's activities.   This confirmed that from the outset the investigating judge in fact regarded the applicant as being guilty.   The courts also took over the views expressed by the police, the press and the investigating judge.   5.     The applicant complains under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention that the bill of indictment mentioned the facts concerning the applicant, but did not legally qualify them (juristische Qualifikation).   The bill of indictment merely mentioned altogether nine provisions of the Criminal Code.   It was not stated, however, which fact fell under which provision of the Criminal Code.   For instance, the applicant was unaware of the legal qualification of the act of breaking in at the police station at Haute Nendaz.   6.     Under Article 6 para. 3 (b) the applicant complains that he was not able personally to consult the case-file.   It was insufficient if only his lawyers could do so, as he was actively involved in his own defence.   7.     The applicant raises various complaints under Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention of the manner in which evidence was assessed.   a)     He complains that the domestic authorities convicted him too easily (unkritisch) on the basis of his "modus operandi", i.e. the typical manner in which he had allegedly committed certain offences.   b)     He further complains that one person was incorrectly heard as a "witness", as he had been heard during proceedings concerning himself. The applicant had not been confronted with this person.   c)     The applicant complains of the Federal Court's statement according to which R. had incriminated the applicant.   However, this was incorrect.   Thus, when questioned whether he, R., had committed offences with the applicant, R. had replied: "I was with him on holidays."   d)     The applicant points out that the expert graphologist employed in these proceedings was a police officer of the Canton of Valais.   He could not be considered neutral, and his opinion should not have been considered as evidence.   e)     The applicant also complains that the courts did not consider any mitigating evidence.   f)     The applicant complains that the domestic courts always spoke of "witnesses" and "statements of witnesses".   However, this technically incorrect, none of the persons having been properly heard as witnesses.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant raises various complaints about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings in which he was involved.   He invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 subparas. (b) and (d) (Art. 6-2, 6-2, 6-3-b, 6-3-d) which, insofar as relevant, state as follows:         "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or       of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a       fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an       independent and impartial tribunal established by law ...         2.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed       innocent until proved guilty according to law.         3.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following       minimum rights: ...         b.    to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of       his defence;       ...         d.    to examine or have examined witnesses against him and       to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his       behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."         The Commission finds it appropriate to examine the applicant's various complaints about the proceedings from the points of view of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-1+6-2+6-3) taken together, especially as the guarantees in paragraphs 2 and 3 represent aspects of the concept of a fair trial contained in paragraph 1 (see Eur. Court HR, Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29).   2.     The applicant complains that the bill of indictment mentioned the facts concerning the applicant, but did not specify their legal qualification.   For instance, the applicant was not aware how the act of breaking into the police station at Haute Nendaz was to be qualified.         The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 3 (a) (Art. 6-3-a) of the Convention gives an accused person the right to be informed of the cause of the accusation, i.e. the acts with which he is charged and on which his indictment is based, and of the nature of the accusation, i.e. the legal classification of the acts in question.   In addition, because of the logical link between paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) of Article 6 (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b), the information about the nature and cause of the accusation must be adequate to enable the accused to prepare his defence accordingly (see No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 149).         In the present case, the bill of indictment of 16 September 1992 listed nine categories of offences of which the applicant was indicted together with the respective statutory provisions.   It then listed on 18 pages the various occasions on which the applicant had committed these offences.   This manner of organising the bill of indictment can be explained, in the Commission's view, by the great number of charges brought against the applicant.         Insofar as the applicant complains that he was unaware of the legal qualification, for instance, of the events at Haute Nendaz, the Commission considers that the respective statements in the bill of indictment enabled the applicant and his lawyers to determine the offence at issue with which he was charged.         In these circumstances, it has not been shown that the applicant was unable duly to prepare and conduct his defence in respect of the charges raised against him.   3.     The applicant complains about the incomplete state of the case- file prepared in the various court proceedings.   Thus, insofar as he was convicted on the basis of his finger-prints and shoe-marks, of a graphological analysis of his handwriting, these elements were only mentioned in the police reports.   Moreover, the case-file was only shown to his lawyers, although he was actively involved in his defence.         However, the Commission notes the decision of the Federal Court of 17 November 1994 - not contested by the applicant - according to which he was in fact able to consult the police reports.   He was moreover given the opportunity before the District Court and the Court of Appeal to request the taking of evidence.         On the whole, the applicant has not shown that the manner in which he and his lawyers were able to consult the case-file - including the police reports - unduly hampered his defence.   4.     The applicant raises various complaints about the taking of evidence, and about its assessment.   Thus, the various police reports, containing information on finger-prints and shoe-marks, on the graphological expert opinion, and on statements of third persons, should not have been employed as evidence.   He was furthermore too easily convicted on the basis of his "modus operandi", and certain persons had not properly been heard as witnesses.   He complains that in fact he had not been incriminated by R., and that no mitigating evidence was considered.   He submits that it is unclear whether the witnesses Mas. and Maz. were shown photos of persons other than himself.         The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case-law according to which, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them.   The Convention organs' task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).         In the present case, there is no indication that the applicant, who was represented by two lawyers, could not sufficiently put forward his point of view.   The Commission notes in particular that the applicant was granted the possibility to request the taking of evidence, and that the various courts carefully assessed the evidence taken in the light of the applicant's submissions.         As regards the complaint about the photos shown to the two witnesses Mas. and Maz., the Commission notes the judgment of the Federal Court of 17 November 1994 according to which the statements of these witnesses were not the only elements leading to the applicant's conviction.         There is, therefore, no indication of unfairness in the manner in which evidence was taken in the applicant's case.   5.     The applicant complains about the insufficient reasons given in the various judgments.   He submits in particular that it had not sufficiently been demonstrated that, when breaking into the police station at Haute Nendaz, he had had the intention of enriching himself.         The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention obliges States to give reasons for their judgments. However, this provision cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument.   The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision.   The question whether or not a court has failed to fulfil the obligation, deriving from Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, to state reasons can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Eur. Court HR, Hiro Balami v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, p. 29 et seq., para. 27).         In the present case, the Commission considers that the Federal Court's decision of 17 November 1994 on the applicant's plea of nullity sufficiently stated that the identity documents stolen at the police station had a certain value and could either be sold, or could be used by the applicant himself who would then be relieved from purchasing such documents elsewhere.         As a result, there is no indication that the domestic courts did not give sufficient reasons for the applicant's conviction.   6.     The applicant raises various complaints about a breach of the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention.   He submits that information was divulged to the press according to which he had committed various offences.   One newspaper article stated that he had been among those who had broken into the police station at Haute Nendaz.   At a meeting of Swiss police, reference was made to the "modus operandi" of the applicant.   The applicant complains that this information stemmed from the investigating judge who in fact considered him to be guilty.         The principle of the presumption of innocence is first of all a procedural guarantee applying in any kind of criminal procedure. However, in a wider sense it protects everybody against being treated by public officials as being guilty of an offence before this is established according to law by a competent court (see No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 106).         In the present case, the Commission notes that the various newspaper articles concerning the applicant employed formulations implying that criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending.         In any event, there is no indication that the investigating authorities, when informing the press, had in fact made such statements which assumed the applicant's guilt.   The Commission notes in this respect that according to two newspaper articles the police refused to comment on the applicant's case.         The applicant's submissions do not, therefore, disclose any appearance of a violation of the presumption of innocence which could have had repercussions on his right to a fair trial.   7.     In sum, taken individually none of the matters complained of by the applicant discloses any appearance of a violation of the rights of the defence under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   Furthermore, the Commission finds that, taken cumulatively, the alleged procedural deficiencies did not result in rendering unfair, for the purposes of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, the criminal proceedings considered as a whole.         It follows that the applicant's complaints are manifestly ill- founded and must be rejected according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           M.F. BUQUICCHIO                           M.P. PELLONPÄÄ          Secretary                                 President    to the First Chamber                      of the First Chamber