CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 octobre 1986

.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 European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 October 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         J.A. FROWEIN                         E. BUSUTTIL                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                         H. VANDENBERGHE                     Mrs G.H. THUNE                     Sir Basil HALL                     Mr. F. MARTINEZ                       Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 9 September 1984 by J.K. against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 October 1985 under file No. 11819/85;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicant is a British citizen born in 1957 and resident in Glasgow.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.   On the evening of 23 April 1983, the applicant accompanied friends to a   party in a house in Glasgow.   The applicant found himself the object of hostility by others at the party and was preparing to leave when a full-scale battle erupted, in which several people received stab-wounds and the applicant himself received injuries in the neck and head from being struck by a glass bottle. One of the men at the party died after receiving a knife-wound in the heart.   The applicant was subsequently arrested in London on 23 October 1983 and charged on 17 counts, including one charge of murder and other charges of assault, criminal damage and breach of the peace.   The applicant's defence was that any injuries he caused were inflicted in self-defence or by accident.   The applicant was tried in the High Court before a jury in February 1984 and found guilty of murder and the majority of the other charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.   His appeal was refused on 13 June 1984.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that he did not receive a fair trial as the police failed to carry out a proper investigation of the scene of the crime, e.g. looking for fingerprints on broken glass and identifying the various bloodstains to be found in the house.   He also complains that the judge removed the issue of diminished responsibility from the consideration of the jury and failed to instruct the jury properly and fairly on the evidence submitted by the Crown and the defence.   He further complains that he did not have adequate time for the preparation of his defence and that he was dissatisfied with the conduct of his case by his counsel.   He also alleges that he has been deprived of the right of self-defence.   He accordingly invokes Article 2 (art. 2), Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) and Article 6 para. 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b) of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that the police failure to investigate fully the scene of the crime and the judge's directions to the jury regarding the evidence deprived him of a fair trial.   He also complains in this context of the conduct of his defence counsel.   Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention provides that in the determination 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.   a) As regards the applicants complaints concerning his defence counsel, the Commission recalls that under Article 25 para. 1 (art. 25-1) of the Convention, the Commission may only admit an application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals, where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the Commission.   The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications directed against private individuals.   In this respect the Comission refers to its constant jurisprudence (see e.g. Applications No. 172/56, Dec. 20.12.57, Yearbook 1 pp. 211, 215 and No. 3925/69, Dec. 2.3.83, Collection 32 pp. 56, 58).   It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   b) As regards the applicant's remaining complaints concerning the fairness of his trial, the Commission recalls that in accordance with its constant jurisprudence the question of whether a trial conforms to the standards laid down in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) must be decided on the basis of an evaluation of the trial in its entirety and not on the basis of an isolated consideration of particular incidents or particular aspects of the trial (see e.g. Application No. 343/57, Dec. 2.9.59, Yearbook 4 p. 548 and Application No. 5574/72, Dec. 21.3.75, D.R. 3 p. 10).   The Commission has accordingly looked at the applicant's trial as a whole on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant. An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted does not however disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains of not receiving adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.   The Commission recalls however that the applicant was arrested on 28 October 1983 and that his trial took place in February 1984. The applicant was represented by a solicitor and counsel.   The Commission has examined this complaint as it has been submitted by the applicant but finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim that he did not receive adequate time or facilities for his defence. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the facts do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b) of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.       The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 para. 2 sub-para (a) (art. 2-2-a).   Article 2 (art. 2) provides:   "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.   Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article (art. 2) when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:   (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;..."   Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention however is an obligation placed on the High Contracting Parties in respect of the right to life.   The applicant has failed to establish that his life has in any way been endangered by any act for which the United Kingdom Government is responsible.   The Commission accordingly finds that on the facts of the application as presented by the applicant there cannot be said to have been any interference with the applicant's right to life contrary to Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention.   It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.               Secretary                         President         to the Commission                 of the Commission             (H.C. KRÜGER)                    (C.A. NØRGAARD)