THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1934 and at present detained in prison at G.. By judgment of .. August 1968 the Regional Court (Kreisgericht) of K. convicted the applicant of manslaughter and gave him an eight years' sentence. The applicant, who had already been previously convicted of manslaughter, was found guilty of having killed an inmate of the prison at S. during a dispute. The applicant, who at the time of the crime served a sentence in the same prison for a crime previously committed, was known as being a dangerous cut-throat. The applicant defended himself with the allegation, that he had fought a mock fight with his victim to show that a man with a knife was superior to a karate fighter such as was the applicant's victim. The Court, however, based its decision on the evidence given by other inmates of the prison who were present when the crime took place and who confirmed that no such sportive fight took place, but a harsh dispute between the two men. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). He insisted on the fact that he had not intended to do any harm to his victim but that the only purpose of his attacking the latter was to perform a sportive fight to which his victim had agreed before-hand. By decision of .. November 1968 the Supreme Court decided to have an oral hearing of the applicant's case and that the applicant should be represented at this hearing by his counsel only, and that he should consequently not personally be present. In the same decision the Supreme Court appointed an ex officio counsel on the applicant's behalf for that purpose. By judgment of .. December 1968, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The Court stated that the lower court's judgment was right and that the applicant's allegations were not confirmed by the evidence given by the witnesses at the trial. The applicant thereafter lodged applications for a retrial. He requested the hearing of several new witnesses and he alleged that the witnesses who had been heard at his trial had given wrong evidence. The applicant also requested that one of these witnesses should be medically examined as to his state of mind, since it appeared to him that this witness was not fully responsible for his statements and actions. The applicant indicated that these new witnesses could confirm that his victim was indeed killed during a mock fight only and not in the course of a dispute. By decision (Beschluss) of .. July 1969, the Regional Court of W. dismissed the applicant's request. The Court held that even assuming that these witnesses confirmed the applicant's allegations, his crime would still qualify as manslaughter since a fight of such a nature could not be considered as being a sportive performance. The Court also stated that the applicant's allegations contained no relevant new facts and did not satisfy the conditions for re-trial within the meaning of Article 353 (1) of the Austrian Code of Penal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). The applicant now complains: - that he is innocent and that the witnesses had given false evidence in his case; - that his ex officio counsel had neglected his duties since he had not looked into the files and since he had not consulted the applicant on the contents of his appeal to the Supreme Court; - and that he had been punished twice for the same offence, since he also received an additional disciplinary penalty apart from that given by the Court. The applicant alleges violations of the Convention. THE LAW Whereas, in the first place the applicant's allegation that he was wrongly convicted and that the witnesses heard at the trial had given false evidence in his case; whereas and examination of the case as it ha 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 to 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) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas, insofar as the applicant's complaints are directed against his lawyer, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention that the sole task of the Commission is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken in the Convention by the High Contracting Parties, being those Members of the Council of Europe which have signed the Convention and deposited their instruments of ratification; Whereas, moreover, it appears from Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention that the Commission can properly admit an application from an individual only if that individual claims to be the victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention by one of the Parties which have accepted this competence of the Commission; Whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the Commission has no competence ratione personae to admit Amnesty Acts directed against private individuals; whereas it follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention (see Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook, Vol. VI, pages 348, 356); Whereas, insofar as the above complaint gives rise to the question whether the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the applicant's defence was properly carried out with the consequence that he was not given a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention, 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 this right; whereas it follows that, in this respect, the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas the applicant further complains that he had been punished twice for the same offence since an additional disciplinary sanction was imposed upon him as a result of the incident concerned apart from the penalty which the Courts imposed; whereas this complaint might give rise to the question whether or not the principle of ne bis in idem is guaranteed by the Convention; whereas this principle, however, is not as such included amongst the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention but there might be the question whether it might not be considered under Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention which guarantees to everyone a fair trial; whereas, however, in the present circumstances this question does not need to be examined further since the applicant has not, in fact, been punished twice for the same offence as the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings in question concerned different aspects of the same incident and impose different sanctions of different categories; whereas, consequently, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas, finally, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to his claim for a retrial and the court proceedings concerned, it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, only the alleged violation of one of those right and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals; Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas the right to a retrial is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; and whereas, in accordance with the Commission's constant jurisprudence, proceedings concerning applications for retrial fall outside the scope of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (see Applications Nos. 864/60, X. v. Austria - Yearbook, Vol. V, p. 96); whereas it follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), thereof; Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE