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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy