THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1933 and at present detained in prison at W.. The applicant, who has previously been convicted of rape and robbery, complains that the German courts committed procedural errors when convicting him of rape on .. May 1968. On 19 August 1967, the applicant was arrested by the police of C., since a 22 year old woman, H., had accused him of having raped her the night before. On 20 August the District Court (Amtsgericht) of O. issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest on suspicion of rape. On 7 November 1967 the Public Prosecutor filed the indictment against the applicant with the Regional Court (Landgericht) of D.; the applicant was indicted for the crime of rape. The indictment was subsequently served on the applicant and on his ex officio counsel, who had been appointed under the legal aid system. The applicant did not object to the indictment and the trial proceedings before the court consequently started on 12 December 1967. On 13 December 1967, the applicant's counsel requested that further evidence should be taken before the applicant's trial. Applicant's counsel asked in particular -  that the panties worn by the applicant's victim and which had been seized by the police, should be examined in a medical forensic laboratory, since an analysis of spots of sperm and of pubic hair possibly found could prove the applicant's innocence; -  that his seventeen year old nephew should be heard as a witness, since he could corroborate the applicant's statement that he had returned home on the night concerned at about 3 a.m., that was only 20 minutes after the rape had taken place and that it was therefore impossible that the applicant was the author, since his home was rather far away from the scene of the crime; -  that a waiter of the public house where the applicant had drunk late at night should be heard as he could name two women who had been in the company of the applicant and who could give evidence that the applicant was drunk when leaving the public house. On 5 January 1968, counsel insisted on the examination of the above-mentioned parties. He referred in this context to commentaries on this subject and maintained the view that this examination could give suitable results, in particular as to the applicant's identity with the offender. Counsel further suggested that it would be appropriate to obtain an opinion on the credibility of the victim since her statements had been contradictory and since her attitude had been strange. He also informed the Court as to the address of the applicant's nephew and requested that inquiries be made with the staff of the public house concerned in order to get hold of the addresses of the two women mentioned above. These inquiries were made and the waiter who had been on duty was summoned for the trial as well as the applicant's nephew. The applicant's trial opened on 17 May 1968. Apparently the applicant's nephew could not appear in Court since he was ill and the applicant waived examination of this witness. The applicant indicates, however, that he did not voluntarily waive the examination of this witness, but only because the latter had been ill. The above-mentioned waiter, when heard as a witness, stated that he did not know the applicant at all. The applicant alleges in this respect that this waiter was not the one who had seen him on 19 August 1967 and that this was consequently not the right witness. The applicant's counsel, during the trial, requested again that additional evidence should be taken by the Court, namely that the scene of the crime should be visited since it appeared impossible that the applicant had raped H. on a row of garbage cans as it had been described by her to the police inspector. He also asked for the forensic examination of her panties and that an expert opinion should be obtained on H.'s credibility, and that a certain Mr. Z. should be heard, since he could prove that the applicant left the bus near his home at 2.30 a.m. and that he could consequently not be the man who had raped H.. He indicated that the address of this witness should be found by means of further investigations. On .. May 1968 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of rape and gave him three years sentence and ordered his subsequent preventive detention. With regard to counsel's requests as regards the taking of further evidence the Court stated that a visit to the scene was not necessary since the statement of H. said she had been raped lying on the garbage cans proved as a simple misunderstanding. The Court also refused the examination of the victim's panties since this would not prove that the accused could not be the offender, but at most that she also had intercourse with another man. The Court furthermore did not find it necessary to hear an expert on the victim's credibility since it had no doubt thereupon. The applicant lodged an appeal (Revision) against this decision with the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof). In the memorial stating the reasons for the appeal the applicant's lawyer alleged that the Regional Court had wrongly refused to take the above evidence. In particular, he pointed out that the victim of the crime had stated at the trial that she had put on the panties concerned on the morning of 18 August and that she had no sexual intercourse until she had been raped. Consequently the examination of those panties would have been an important means of proof of the applicant's innocence. The lawyer also pointed out that the trial had shown that no credibility should be given to the victim's statements and that it was indispensable to obtain an expert's opinion on this point. Finally, it was stated that the above-mentioned Mr. Z. had not been heard of, since the Court could not obtain his address; the applicant's lawyer, however, stated that the Court has by negligence not found the applicant's address since it had not made enough inquiries. On 7 February 1969 the Federal Attorney General (Generalbundesanwalt) gave his opinion on the applicant's appeal and requested the Federal Court to dismiss it by decision (Beschluss) under Article 349 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that the examination of the victim's panties had not been essential and that the Court had been capable, without expert opinion, to determine the victim's credibility. As to the hearing of Mr. Z. the Attorney General referred to reasons set forth in the Regional Court's judgment. In his reply, the applicant's lawyer on 10 February 1969 emphasised again that the above-mentioned supplementary evidence would be essential. On .. March 1969 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's appeal by decision (Beschluss) under Article 349 (2) (3) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure for being ill-founded. The Federal Court gave no reasons for this decision. In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicant complains that he was innocent, and that the courts did not hear the witnesses for his defence, and that the courts based their decisions on incomplete evidence. Proceedings before the Commission A group of three members of the Commission examined the question of admissibility of the application on 29 January 1970 and reported unanimously that it appeared to be admissible. The application was consequently communicated to the respondent Government for its observations in writing on the admissibility of the application, in accordance with Rule 45 (2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Government submitted its observations on 20 April 1970. The applicant 's observations in reply were received on 5 May 1970. Submissions of the Parties The respondent Government maintains that the applicant's allegation that the Court did not hear the witnesses for his defence is wrong. At the trial on 17 May 1970, the applicant waived examination of his nephew. The other witnesses mentioned by the applicant could not be traced since their domiciles were not known to the Court and since investigations as to their abodes made by the Court had no result. As concerns the applicant's contention that the Court failed to have a forensic examination made of the victim's panties the Federal Government maintains that Article 6 (3) (d) of the Convention merely guarantees an accused person's right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. It must be concluded therefrom that an accused person's right of adduction of other evidence is not included in the human rights expressly guaranteed by the Convention. Moreover, it appears from the observations made in the judgment of the Regional Court of D. .. May 1968, that the question whether an examination of the panties was necessary has been carefully considered. As a result of such careful consideration the Court held that it should abstain from having the panties examined, and it is exactly this careful consideration that cannot be regarded as a denial of the general right to be entitled to a fair hearing. Besides, the Commission has repeatedly held that it cannot in the manner of a superior court review any errors of fact or of law incurred in the national courts, provided that such errors do not in themselves constitute violations of the Convention. In view of all this, the Federal Government is of the opinion that the application is manifestly ill-founded and, therefore, requests that it be considered inadmissible. THE LAW Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the German Courts wrongly convicted him of rape an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention; whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the Commission has frequently stated that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention; whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium - Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas it follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention; Whereas, the applicant further complains that the German Courts refused to hear several witnesses on his behalf and to take additional evidence, i.e. to have the panties of his victim examined by an expert; Whereas the Commission has considered these complaints both under Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention which guarantees to everyone a fair hearing and in the determination of a criminal charge against him under Article 6 paragraph (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d) which guaranteed the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; Whereas as regards the hearing of the witnesses, the Commission is satisfied that the Regional Court made all possible efforts to hear the witnesses requested by the applicant; whereas two of these witnesses were in fact called and examined by the Court, while the applicant himself waived the examination of a further witness who was ill and unable to attend the trial; whereas as regards the remaining witness Mr. Z., the Commission has noted that the latter was not summoned for the sole reason that his whereabouts were unknown and, despite every effort by the Court, could not be found out; Whereas it is, in principle, on the responsibility of the accused person to inform the trial court of the name and the address of the witnesses for his defence; whereas the Commission refers in this respect mutatis mutandis to its decisions on the admissibility of Application No. 3566/68 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 31, p. 34); Whereas, moreover, the Commission finds that, regarding the proceedings as a whole, the applicant has had a "fair trial" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, and that no problem as regards the taking of additional evidence arose; Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE