CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mars 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. 39387/98                       by Paul KNIGHT                       against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 March 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, Acting President                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            MM     R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV              Mr     M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission        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 June 1996 by Paul KNIGHT against the United Kingdom and registered on 16 January 1998 under file No. 39387/98;        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 British citizen born in 1961 and is currently resident in Bowdenhouse clinic, Middlesex. The facts as submitted by the applicant, and as may be deduced from the documents submitted by him, may be summarised as follows.        In or about 1989, the applicant was convicted of assault and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which concluded by 1991. From this time, he began to complain of massive brain torture and suffering, including persecution from voices in the atmosphere and the melting of his face by rays.        The applicant's attempts to obtain legal representation to pursue proceedings claiming damages for torture failed.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant invokes principally Article 3 in relation to the torture which he alleges that he suffers eg. mind reading, brain torture, facial burning and facial melting. He has also invoked Articles 2, 5 paras. 1 and 5, 8, 9 and 12. He states that his imprisonment from 1989 to 1991 was unjustified.     THE LAW        The applicant complains that he has been subjected to torture, including mind reading, facial burning and facial melting. He invokes, principally, Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, as well as Articles 2 (Art. 2) (the right to life), 5 paras. 1 (5-1) (the right to liberty and security of person) and 5 (the right to compensation for arrest or detention in violation of the other provisions of Article 5 (Art. 5)), 8 (Art. 8) (right to respect for private life), 9 ((Art. 9) freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 12 (Art. 12) (the right to marry) of the Convention.   1.    Insofar as the applicant complains of the lack of justification for his imprisonment from 1989 to 1991, the Commission recalls that Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only deal with a complaint where domestic remedies have been exhausted and where the complaint has been introduced within six months of the final decision taken in respect of that matter. The Commission notes that it is not apparent whether the applicant instituted any appeal against his conviction or sentence. However, even assuming that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission would be unable to examine his complaints in this respect since they relate to events which occurred more that six months before the introduction of this application on 13 June 1996. Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.          It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.    Insofar as the applicant complains of torture, and invokes Articles 2, 5,   8 and 12 (Art. 2, 5, 8, 12) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant has not substantiated that the treatment which he describes himself as suffering   falls within the responsibility of the respondent Government, nor has he provided any details of alleged interferences by the respondent Government with any of the rights referred to. It follows that on examination of the material submitted by the applicant there is no appearance of a violation of the provisions of the Convention invoked by him.        It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.             M. de SALVIA                         J.-C. GEUS          Secretary                         Acting President       to the Commission                    of the Commission