CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 juillet 1995

.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. 21967/93                       by Sándor SÁRKÖZI                       against Hungary         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 July 1995, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  H. DANELIUS                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, 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 19 April 1993 by Sándor SÁRKÖZI against Hungary and registered on 3 June 1993 under file No. 21967/93;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to:   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       30 December 1993;   -      the Commission's decision of 18 January 1994 to grant legal aid;   -      the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on       30 March 1994;   -      the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent       Government on 19 August 1994, and the observations in reply       submitted by the applicant on 30 October 1994; the Government's       further comments of 2 December 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The facts, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant is a Hungarian citizen born in 1960.   When lodging his application, he was serving a sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment under a strict regime (fegyház) in the Budapest Prison (Fegyház és Börtön).   In the proceedings before the Commission, he is represented by Mrs. J. Gaál, a lawyer practising in Budapest.   A.     Particular circumstances of the present case         On 31 May 1990 the applicant was arrested by the Szigetvar City Police (Városi Rendorkapitányság) on a charge of theft.         According to the applicant, policemen severely beat him several times in order to persuade him to plead guilty.   On 3 June 1990 the applicant was, following an alleged ill-treatment and attempt to commit suicide, transferred to a hospital.   He fled from the hospital the same day.         On 31 May 1991 the applicant was arrested again and he was kept in detention during the subsequent criminal proceedings, at first in the Pecs City Police cells (Pécsi Városi Rendorkapitányság fogdája), later in Pecs Prison (Pécsi Büntetésvégrehajtási Intézet).         The applicant claims that he was several times ill-treated both in the police cells and in the prison.   In or about the summer of 1991 he lodged charges with the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ügyészség) against the policemen and the prison staff concerned.   On 14 December 1991 the Pecs Local Office of the Kaposvar Prosecutor's Investigation Office (Kaposvári Ügyészség Nyomozó Hivatal Pécsi Kirendeltsége) dismissed the charges.         On 3 March 1992 the Szigetvár District Court (Városi Bíróság) convicted the applicant, inter alia, of the offence of having escaped from prison and sentenced him to four years and two months' imprisonment.   On 17 June 1992 the Baranya Regional Court (Megyei Bíróság) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 3 March 1992.   It also ordered the District Court to fix a cumulative sentence, taking into account a prior sentence of one year and five months' imprisonment.   Thereupon, the Szigetvár District Court, as confirmed by the Baranya Regional Court on 20 November 1992, fixed a cumulative sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment.         On 6 July 1992 the applicant was transferred to the Budapest Prison to serve his sentence under the strict regime where he is presently still detained.   The prison authorities, having regard to the criminal offences committed by the applicant, his previous attempts to commit suicide and his attempts to escape from prison, treat him as particularly dangerous.   He is presently detained with seven other detainees in a cell of 25.2m².   In case of bad weather conditions, the Budapest Prison authorities do not arrange for the inmates' daily exercise of one hour in the uncovered prison yard.         According to the applicant, some of his complaints to various authorities about his conviction and about alleged ill-treatment were torn up by the prison staff; as a result of his complaining he was beaten several times by some inmates instigated by the prison staff; he further suffers other disconfort, such as being locked up for 23 and a half hours a day in his cell.         On 11 and 31 December 1992 the applicant was, according to the Budapest Prison records on the health of prisoners, attacked by other inmates.   The applicant received medical treatment and the persons concerned were held responsible.         On 8 February 1993 the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions of the Ministry of Justice (Igazságügyi Minisztérium Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága) rejected the applicant's complaint concerning the conditions of his detention.         On 6 April 1993 the Szigetvár District Court, upon the applicant's request of 22 October 1992 and following preliminary investigations, ordered the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him regarding his conviction of 3 March 1992 concerning, inter alia, the offence of having escaped from prison and fixed 11 May 1993 as date for a hearing.   On 16 April 1993 the applicant was summoned for hearings in these proceedings on 11 May and 16 July 1993.   On 28 April 1993 the Baranya Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion to challenge the judges at the District Court for bias. Following the hearing on 16 July 1993, the District Court confirmed his conviction.         On 26 May 1993 the Pecs Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint, dated 29 April 1993, against the decision of the Pecs Local Office of the Kaposvar Attorney's Investigation Office of 14 December 1991 as well as his new complaints about alleged ill- treatment in June 1990.   The Office found that these submissions were unsubstantiated and also lodged one and a half years after the expiry of the eight days time limit.         On 19 April 1993 the applicant lodged an application with the Commission.   Regarding the subsequent exchange of correspondence, there are diverging submissions by the parties.         According to the applicant, letters of the Commission's Secretariat, sent to him on 5 May, 3 June and 23 June 1993, were stopped by the prison authorities, opened in his absence, and handed to him with an average delay of two or three days.         The applicant also claims that his letters to authorities and to the Commission have been often stopped by the prison authorities and mailed only with considerable delay.   He alleges in particular a delay in mailing his letter to the Commission dated 11 June 1993, and points out that his letter of 13 June 1993 arrived earlier at the Commission.         According to the Government, the Budapest Prison did not keep records of the prisoners' correspondence and the delivery of correspondence addressed to them, but incoming mail was stamped with the date of arrival.   Thus, the envelope of the Commission's letter of 3 June 1993, mailed on 7 June, was stamped with 11 June 1993 as date of arrival.   The Commission's letter of 23 June had been mailed on 25 June 1993; its envelope was stamped with 29 June 1993 as date of arrival, it had been opened and the letter itself was stamped by the Prison Governor.   The letter of 1 July 1993 and its envelope had not been stamped upon arrival.   The envelope of the letter of 13 July 1993, mailed on the same day, was stamped with 19 July 1993 as date of arrival; the envelope of the letter dated 29 July was stamped with 6 August 1993 and the envelope of the letter of 22 October with 28 October 1993 as date of arrival.   In the course of the Government's investigations, no indications were found that all envelopes had been opened by the prison authorities.         The Government further submit that there was no evidence on whether or not the letter of 11 June 1993 had been retained, in particular there was no record on when the applicant had given it to the prison authorities for mailing.         The applicant's letter of 11 June 1993, in which he complained, inter alia, about alleged ill-treatment and interference with his correspondence, was   stamped on 18 June 1993 and arrived at the Commission on 23 June 1993.   The applicant's letter of 13 June 1993 was apparently stamped on 14 June and arrived at the Commission on 16 June 1993.   The applicant's letter of 22 June 1993 complaining about, inter alia, ill-treatment and interferences with his mail was smuggled from the prison by his wife, and the letter was mailed in France.   In his letter of 25 June 1993 the applicant informed the Commission that he was prohibited from continuing correspondence with the Commission.         The applicant's complaints with the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions dated 14 and 24 June 1993, which related to his alleged ill-treatment and the prison conditions as well as the interference with his correspondence, was dismissed.   The National Headquarters found in particular that the applicant's letters were never stopped by the Budapest Prison, the fact that these letters were duly mailed being evidenced by the arrival of correspondence in reply thereto.         Following the above complaints, the prison authorities changed their routine regarding the applicant's correspondence with the Commission.   On 6 July 1993 the Commission's letter of 1 July 1993 was handed unopened to the applicant and he was promised to experience no more interferences with his correspondence either to or from the Commission.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice         S. 41 para. 1 of the Hungarian Penal Code (1978. évi IV. Törvény a Bünteto Törvénykönyvrol) provides for three categories of detention after conviction, namely a light regime (fogház), a medium regime (börtön) and a strict regime (fegyház).   According to S. 42, criminal offenders sentenced to life imprisonment, to a term of imprisonment of three years or more in particularly serious offences, or to a term of imprisonment of two years or more for recidivism, have to serve their sentence in a strict regime prison (fegyház).         According to Law-Decree 11 of 1979 on the enforcement of punishments and measures (Büntetések és intézkedések végrehajtárásról szóló 1979. évi. 11. törvényereju), as amended by Law XXXII of 1993 (1993. évi. XXXII. törvény) which entered into force on 15 April 1993, the human dignity of convicts shall be respected, they may not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or humiliating treatment, or to medical experiments, and no scientific research or experiment may be performed without their consent.         S. 26 of Law-Decree 11 of 1979, as amended by Law XXXII of 1993 relates to strict regime prisons (fegyház) and provides in particular that the inmate's daily life shall be regulated in detail and that he is to be under constant control; that even within the prison, his movements are subject to permission and supervision; that he may exceptionally participate in work outside the prison if he can be separated from the outside world.   Having served at least one year of the prison sentence imposed, the inmate may be permitted to move within the prison or part of it without supervision but under control, and to take part in work outside prison.         According to S. 36 para. 1 (b) of Law-Decree 11 of 1979, as amended by Law XXXII of 1993, inmates are entitled to correspond with their relatives and persons designated by them and approved by the prison authorities; the frequency and length of letters are not subject to any restrictions.   S. 36 para. 5 provides for a control of inmates' correspondence for reasons of security, except for letters sent to public authorities and to international organisations; inmates are entitled to be informed about the possibility of control.   According to S. 36 para. 1 (g), the inmate may state, or complain about, alleged violations of his rights with the prison authorities or with other state organs.   S. 36 para. 1 (k) provides that the inmates are entitled to one hour's daily exercise.   Under S. 41 para. 1 inmates may be rewarded inter alia for exemplary conduct.         Order 8/1979/VI.30/IM (8/1979 (VI.30.) IM), issued by the Minister of Justice (Igazságügyminiszter), sets out the Prison Rules.         According to Rule 9 of Order 8/1979/VI.30/IM, the custody, supervision and control of inmates are organised according to their category of detention and the classification of the inmates within the category concerned.   According to Rule 10, inmates under the strict regime shall be detained in an area separate from the other areas of the prison.   Within that area the different groups within the category shall be kept separately, and the doors of the cells shall be kept locked.   Inmates are classified into different groups according to security aspects, pursuant to Rule 33 para. 1.   In this respect, Rule 23 of the Security Rules (Biztonsági Szabályzat), issued as Appendix to Instruction 102/1982/IK.2.IM, provides that an inmate shall be considered as extremely dangerous if, having regard to his personality or the nature of the offence committed by him, it is likely that he is a danger to his own or another's life or health, or that he may escape from prison or if his conduct otherwise constitutes a security risk.         Under Rule 85 para. 1 of Order 8/1979/VI.30/IM, inmates are placed in common cells of six to eight cubic metres each.   In this respect, Rule 366 para. 1 of Instruction 101/1981/IK.2/IM, as amended by Instruction 6/1990/IK Bv. Mell. 1/IM, specifies that common cells should allow at least 3 m² per person.         According to Rule 22 of Order 8/1979/VI.30/IM, an inmate may lodge complaints and apply for the remedying of any individual injury. His complaint and application shall be settled by the competent special service of the institution, except when the matter belongs to the competence of the governor.   If the inmate is not satisfied with the measures taken by the competent special service, he may complain with the governor, and afterwards with the National Headquarters of the Penal Institutions.   No further complaint lies against the measures taken by the National Headquarters.   Complaints have no suspensive effect.   According to Rule 27 para. 2, the inmate may request to be heard by the competent public prosecutor.         S. 11 (a) of Law V of 1972 on the Public Prosecutor's Office (Magyar Köstársaság Ügyészségérol szóló, 1972. évi V. törvény) provides inter alia that the public prosecutor may supervise the lawfulness of the conditions of detention, detention on remand, forced medical treatment and the execution of the detention.   According to S. 11 (c), the public prosecutor may hear inmates and examine complaints concerning the execution of sentences.   The organs competent for the execution of sentences are required to comply with the public prosecutor's instructions concerning the lawfulness and the conditions of detention on remand.         According to Article 70/K of the Hungarian Constitution (Alkotmány), as amended by Act XXXI of 1989 (1989. évi XXXI. törvény), claims based on the violation of fundamental rights, and objections regarding decisions taken by public authorities in the performance of their functions can be brought before a court.   It follows from the official commentary which is attached to Act XXXI of 1989 that Article 70/K was intended to create the possibility of access to court in respect of claims against other persons or the state in connection with the fundamental rights.   Article 59 para. 1 of the Constitution ensures the right to a good reputation, the right to respect for one's home and the protection of private secrets and personal data.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains about his conviction claiming that he was innocent and also submits that the courts dealing with his case were biased.   In this respect and also with regard to the following complaints, the applicant does not invoke any particular provision of the Convention.   2.     Moreover, the applicant complains that the prison authorities interfered with his correspondence.         He submits that some of his letters addressed to public authorities were torn up, that others, inter alia, to the Commission were mailed with considerable delay and that he was prohibited from carrying on correspondence with the Commission for a while.   He claims that reprisals were applied against him by the prison authorities often through other inmates as a consequence of his complaining.         He also submits that letters to him from the domestic public authorities and from the Commission are opened in his absence and read by the prison authorities and that he receives these letters only with considerable delay.   3.     The applicant further complains that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in the course of his detention in different police cells and prisons including the Budapest Prison where he is currently detained.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 19 April and registered on 3 June 1993.         On 19 October 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.         On 30 December 1993 the Government submitted their observations.         On 18 January 1994 the Commission decided to grant the applicant legal aid.         The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 30 March 1994.         The respondent Government submitted supplementary observations on 19 August 1994, and observations in reply were submitted by the applicant on 30 October 1994.   The Government's further comments dated 2 December 1994.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains about his conviction and also of the court proceedings concerned.         The Commission recalls that the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with respect to that Party (cf. No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 146).         The Commission observes that the date of entry into force of the Convention with respect to Hungary was 5 November 1992.   The applicant was convicted by the Szigetvár District Court on 3 March 1992 and his appeal was dismissed by the Baranya Regional Court on 17 June 1992. The Szigetvár District Court subsequently fixed a cumulative sentence which was confirmed by the Baranya Regional Court on 20 November 1992. Following the applicant's request of 22 October 1992, the Szigetvár District Court ordered the reopening of the proceedings regarding his conviction of March 1992 on 6 April 1993.   On 16 July 1993 the District Court, having held two hearings, confirmed the applicant's conviction.         In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the decisions taken prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Hungary, and the proceedings relating thereto do not come within the jurisdiction of the Commission ratione temporis (cf., mutatis mutandis, No. 7211/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 7 p. 104).         The Commission is therefore only competent ratione temporis to examine the proceedings concerning the fixing of a cumulative sentence and the reopening of the criminal proceedings in 1993.   The Commission has examined these proceedings under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.         As regards the proceedings concerning the fixing of a cumulative sentence, the Commission recalls that, in the event of conviction, there is no determination of any criminal charge, within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), as long as the sentence is not definitely fixed (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 35, para. 77).   Article 6 (Art. 6) is therefore applicable to the proceedings regarding the fixing of a cumulative sentence.   However, the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance of unfairness in this part of the proceedings. Consequently, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         As regards the proceedings concerning the applicant's request for a reopening of the criminal proceedings, the Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) does not apply to such proceedings given the fact that someone who applies for his case to be reopened and whose sentence has become final is not charged with a criminal offence within the meaning of the said Article (Art. 6) (cf. No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R 14 p. 171).   However, in the present case, the applicant's request resulted in the reopening of the proceedings against him, as decided on 6 April 1993, and the competent District Court conducted hearings in May and July 1993.   On 16 July 1993 the applicant's conviction was confirmed.   In these circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that Article 6   (Art. 6) is applicable to the reopened proceedings as the latter involved a determination of the criminal charges against the applicant.   However, having considered the applicant's submissions regarding these proceedings and all material submitted in this respect, the Commission finds that the applicant failed to show any appearance of unfairness in the conduct of these proceedings or of bias on the part of the District Court.   This complaint is, therefore, also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible under Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant further complains about the interference with his correspondence by the authorities of the Budapest Prison.         Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and       family life, his home and his correspondence.         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with       the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with       the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests       of national security, public safety or the economic well-being       of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the       protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the       rights and freedoms of others."   a.     As to whether the applicant complied with Article 26 (Art. 26)         The Government maintain that the applicant failed to exhaust, as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the domestic remedies available to him under Hungarian law.   The Government submit that the applicant already complained to the Commission about the correspondence issues in his letter of 11 June 1993, before filing such complaints with the competent Hungarian authorities, namely the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions and/or the competent public prosecutor's office.   According to the Government, the applicant could have also brought the matter before a court, pursuant to Article 70/K of the Hungarian Constitution.   They consider that Article 70/K, which was introduced in 1989, created an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26), although there is no case-law on the application of this provision.         The applicant considers that the remedies as set out by the Government could not be regarded as effective for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26).   According to the applicant, the complaints procedure within the framework of the penal institutions as well as the possibility of a complaint with the public prosecutor's office do not allow for a review of the matter complained about by an independent and impartial body or tribunal.   He is also of the opinion that Article 70/K of the Constitution is of a declaratory nature and does not as such create an effective remedy.         Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.         The Commission recalls that the only remedies which Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention requires to be exercised are those that are both available and sufficient in respect of the violation alleged.   The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness.    Moreover, it is for the State to prove that there exist available remedies which have not been utilised by those concerned (see Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp. 15 and 16, paras. 26 and 29, with further references; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, para. 39).         With regard to the first remedy suggested by the respondent Government, the Commission notes that the applicant in fact raised his complaint about interference with his correspondence with the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions, and he received a negative reply.         It is true that, at the time that he made use of this remedy referred to by the Government, he had already mentioned this complaint in his correspondence with the Commission.         However, while an applicant is, as a general rule, in duty bound to exercise the different remedies before he applies to the Commission, it is open to the Commission to accept the fact that the last stage of such remedies may be reached shortly after the lodging of the application but before its decision on admissibility (cf., Eur. Court H.R., Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 38, para. 91).         The Commission notes that the applicant introduced complaints relating to various matters on 19 April 1993, and he subsequently amended his submissions and filed further complaints.   The applicant raised his complaints about the control of his correspondence at about the same time in June 1993 both with the Commission and the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions, and the latter took a decision shortly afterwards.   The Government failed to show any legitimate interest which could have been prejudiced by the fact that this particular complaint was raised with the Commission shortly before the Hungarian authorities had the opportunity to decide upon the matter.         The applicant's complaints under Article 8 (Art. 8) cannot, therefore, be rejected for non-exhaustion of the remedies before the prison authorities, in particular the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions.         With regard to the second remedy proposed by the Government, i.e. a complaint with the competent public prosecutor's office, the Commission notes that no further appeal lies against the measures taken by the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions pursuant to Rule 22 of Order 8/1979/VI.30/IM.   It is true that, according to Rule 27 para. 2 of Order 8/1979/VI.30/IM, an inmate may request to be heard by the competent public prosecutor.   However, the Commission finds that the applicant, after having exhausted the remedy with the highest body in the administration of penal institutions, cannot be reproached for not having raised a further complaint with another administrative authority, namely the Public Prosecutor's Office.         As regards the third remedy, namely the court action referred to in Article 70/K of the Hungarian Constitution, the Commission notes that the Hungarian Government were unable to cite a single instance in which a plaintiff had instituted court proceedings under Article 70/K of the Constitution, as amended in 1989.   This absence of case-law indicates the uncertainty of this remedy in practical terms. Accordingly, the Government have not shown that this action could constitute an available and sufficient remedy that the applicant ought to have exhausted.         It follows that the applicant's complaint about interference with his correspondence cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   b.     As to whether the applicant can be regarded as a "victim"         The Government maintain that only in one instance it could be proved that a letter from the Commission to the applicant had been opened by the authorities of the Budapest Prison, i.e. the letter dated 23 June 1993.   In this respect, the Government point out that the routine regarding the control of correspondence from the Commission was changed by the prison authorities following the applicant's complaint with the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions.   They consider that the applicant thereby obtained redress which would preclude him from complaining to the Commission pursuant to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.         The Commission recalls that the Convention leaves to each Contracting State, in the first place, the task of securing the enjoyment of the rights and freedom it enshrines.   To duplicate the domestic process with proceedings before the Commission and the Court would appear hardly compatible with the subsidiary character of the machinery of protection established by the Convention.   Accordingly, a person may exceptionally no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Eur. Court. H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).         In the present case, the applicant received a negative reply by the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions regarding his complaint about interference with his correspondence.   In particular, the National Headquarters found that the applicant's letters were never stopped by the Budapest Prison, their due mailing being evidenced by the arrival of correspondence in reply thereto.         The Commission considers that there was thus no express acknowledgement of the breach of the Convention alleged by the applicant.   As to the question whether there was an implicit acknowledgement, the Commission finds that, having regard to the above- mentioned negative reply by the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions, the change of the prison routine regarding the control of his correspondence cannot be regarded as amounting in substance to such an acknowledgement, and redress for the alleged breach of the Convention.         Consequently, the Commission is not, pursuant to Article 25 para. 1(Art. 25-1) , precluded from examining in full the applicant's complaint about interference with his correspondence.   c.     The alleged breach of Article 8 (Art. 8)         The Government, referring to the case-law of the Convention organs in this area, submit that some measure of control over prisoners' correspondence is not contrary to the Convention.   They consider that the control of the applicant's correspondence was based on Hungarian law and that it was necessary for the prevention of crime and in the interest of public safety, namely the safety of the prison concerned.   In this respect, they also point out that the legal provisions only allow, but do not oblige, the authorities to control the prisoners' correspondence, and in practice not all letters are controlled.   According to the Government, there is no proof of delay in forwarding letters to the applicant.         The applicant objects to the Government's views.   He maintains that there was a systematic control of his correspondence which could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety.         The Commission finds that this complaint raises serious issues of such complexity that they require an examination of the merits. This part of the application cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded, and there is no other ground on which it could be declared inadmissible.   3.     The applicant also complains about inhuman and degrading treatment in the course of his detention.         According to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, "no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".   a.     The Commission notes that some of the events referred to by the applicant, in particular alleged ill-treatment by police officers, occurred prior to 5 November 1992, the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Hungary, and do not, therefore, come within the jurisdiction of the Commission ratione temporis.   In this context the Commission observes that the Pecs Public Prosecutor's Office, in its decision of 26 May 1993, regarded the applicant's complaint about the decision of the Investigation Office of 14 December 1991, which dismissed his charges against several police officers, as having been lodged out of time.   This procedure does not affect the Commission's finding as to its competence ratione temporis regarding the incidents complained of.         It follows that this part of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 is inadmissible under Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention.   b.     The applicant's further submissions relating to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention concern both alleged incidents of ill- treatment by other inmates of the Budapest Prison, allegedly upon the instigation of the prison staff, and the particular conditions of his detention.         The Government maintain that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him.         The Commission notes that the applicant lodged complaints with the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions regarding his prison conditions which remained unsuccessful.   As regards the further remedies proposed by the Government, the Commission refers to its findings on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaints about the control of his correspondence. His complaints about treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) cannot, therefore, be rejected for non-compliance with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.         The Government further submit that there is no evidence to show that, in the relevant period, the applicant was detained in the Budapest Prison in a manner contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3).   According to them, the conditions of his detention are in compliance with the demands of the enforcement of sentences in respect of inmates qualified as particularly dangerous, and do not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or torture.         The applicant turns the Commission's attention in particular to the size of his cell, which he shares with seven other inmates, and to the fact that, in the absence of a regular daily exercise, he has to spend his time in his cell, except for the meals.         The Commission finds that the applicant's complaints concerning the conditions of his detention raise serious issues of such complexity that they require an examination of the merits.   This part of the application cannot, therefore, be considered manifestly ill-founded, and there is no other ground on which it could be declared inadmissible.   4.     The Commission has finally examined the applicant's submissions relating to the conditions of his detention (Article 3) (Art. 3) and the control of his correspondence (Article 8) in the context of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.         Article 13 (Art. 13) provides that "everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".         According to the Government, the remedies suggested in the context of its submissions under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provide an effective legal protection for the purposes of Article 13 (Art. 13).         The Commission, having regard to its above considerations under Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention, considers that the present aspect of the application cannot be declared manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2). Accordingly, it reserves also this issue for an examination as to its merits.         For these reasons, the Commission by a majority         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaints about his       conviction and also of the court proceedings concerned, as well       as his complaints about alleged ill-treatment prior to 5 November       1992;         DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application,       without prejudging the merits of the case.         Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission              (H.C. KRUGER)                      (C.A. NORGAARD)