THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in 1923 and at present detained in prison at Grendon Underwood. He was put on probation at Somerset Quarter Session on .. January 1968. A condition of the probation order was that he should reside at the Y Hospital or any place directed by a Dr. B for a period not exceeding twelve months and receive treatment from him. He says that during the period he was in the hospital he received no treatment, he was detained in a locked ward and he eventually asked to be discharged. He says that Dr B, after communicating with the probation service, agreed to his request because, as he later stated in writing, he had no power to detain the applicant while the latter was a voluntary patient. The applicant complains that the condition included in the probation order was invalid because the restrictions placed upon him could not be legally enforced by Dr B. The applicant was charged with failing to comply with a condition of the probation order, namely leaving the hospital without Dr B's permission. He says that he made no plea before the summary court in answer to this charge, reserved his defence and was committed to Somerset Quarter Sessions. He alleges that he was not allowed to plead, being told that he was appearing for sentence only, having been found guilty by the magistrates, and was sentenced on .. February 1968 to four years' imprisonment. He complains that he was not legally tried but found "guilty on supposition". He applied for leave to appeal which was refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal on .. July 1968. The full Court of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused leave to appeal against sentence on .. January 1969, but he maintains that his appeal was against conviction as well. His application to the House of Lords was refused on .. January 1969. He claims that he has been deprived to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided. He further complains that the only evidence against him was a probation officer's report which was not made available to him until eight months after he was sentenced, after his Member of Parliament had made representations to the Home Secretary. He alleges that the prison authorities repeatedly obstructed his efforts to obtain certain information relating to his case, and he eventually asked the Court of Appeal to make a direction against them. The applicant gives no further particulars of this allegation. He alleges violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. THE LAW Whereas, insofar as the applicant can be said to complain of the conviction in respect of which he was put on probation, it is to be observed that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the applicant failed to make use of his right to appeal which was available to him immediately after his conviction; Whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under English law; whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal; whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention has not been complied with by the applicant; Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the probation order was invalid because it was not legally enforceable, the question whether or not such condition was legally enforceable has no bearing on the validity of a probation order whose essential object is to seek the voluntary compliance of the probationer; Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was detained in a locked ward in the hospital, it is to be recalled that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the applicant failed to show that he made any complaint to the appropriate authorities or attempted to institute any proceedings; Whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies available to him under English law; whereas, moreover an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal; Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27 (Art. 26, 27) of that Convention has not been complied with by the applicant; Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains, under Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention, that he did not have a fair trial in the proceedings before the magistrates and Quarter Sessions following which he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, it is to be observed that the applicant's failure to comply with the condition under the probation order empowered to the court to pass sentence on the applicant for the original offense; whereas the validity of the probation order could no longer be challenged in those proceedings; Whereas therefore, the only issue before Quarter Sessions, before passing sentence was whether or not the applicant had failed to comply with the condition under the probation order; whereas a finding on this issue since it could and did in the present case lead to the imposition of a sentence, was in substance the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention; Whereas, however, it was not controvertible, and does not appear ever to have been disputed by the applicant, that he was in fact in breach of this condition; whereas, therefore, the sole issue before the court was not in dispute; whereas it follows that the applicant's complaint that he did not receive a fair hearing is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains of his subsequent detention, and in particular that he had been deprived of his right under Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4) of the Convention to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided, it is clear that the applicant was detained after conviction by a competent court and in accordance with the terms of his sentence in conformity with Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention; Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also paragraph (2) (Art. 5-2), of the Convention; Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE