THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1919 and, when lodging his application, he was detained in prison at G., in Austria. On .. December 1968 the Regional Court (Landesgericht) of G. convicted the applicant of attempted indecent assault and of the minor offense of indecent behaviour (Verbrechen der versuchten Schändung und Schamhaftigkeit) and gave him a 15 months' prison sentence. The applicant was found guilty of having attempted to abuse two girls aged 10 and 11 years old and of having later exposed his private parts to other young girls. The applicant had confessed to the second offence but denied the attempted abuse of the two girls. The Court based its decision on the statements of the girls whose credibility was carefully considered. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). He attacked the credibility of the statements of the two girls on which the Court had based its judgment. He further maintained that he had simply shown them his private parts and that this constituted only the minor offense of indecent behaviour. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal by a judgment of .. April 1969 the text of which was communicated to the applicant on 13 May 1969. The Court held that the credibility of the girls was beyond doubt and that the Regional Court had given sufficient and convincing reasons for the applicant's conviction. The Court also held that the penalty was justified since the applicant had been previously convicted of a similar offense. The applicant subsequently served his sentence in the prison at G. Apparently he requested on several occasions to be released before serving his total sentence. He alleged that his general condition of health was bad and that he suffered from a heart disease. However, these requests were not successful. The applicant now complains: - that he was innocent and that he had been wrongly convicted of attempted indecent assault since his acts only constituted a minor offense; - that he has been discriminated against since other persons who committed similar offenses did not receive such a heavy penalty; - that his requests for release from prison before the end of his sentence were not successful despite the fact that he had a heart disease which made him incapable of serving a prison sentence. The applicant alleges violations of Articles 6, 7 and 14 of the Convention. THE LAW Whereas the applicant first complains that he was innocent and that he was wrongly convicted of attempted indecent assault, since his acts only constituted a minor offence only; whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and especially in Articles 6 and 7 (Art. 6, 7) thereof; 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 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) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas the applicant further complains generally, as regards the alleged discrimination, that he has been the victim of discrimination since other persons, who committed similar offenses, were not given such a heavy penalty as he had received; whereas, the Commission first finds that the right to a particular penalty is not, as such, included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Whereas, however, it has considered this complaint under the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention; whereas it is to be recalled that the European Court of Human Rights found that the guarantee of Article 14 (Art. 14) "has no independent existence in the sense that, under the terms of Article 14 (Art. 14), it relates solely to rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention, nevertheless a measure, which in itself is in conformity with the requirements of the Article enshrining the right or freedom in question, may however infringe this Article when read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) for the reason that it is of a discriminatory nature" (see European Court of Human Rights Case "relating to certain aspects of the law on the use of languages in education in Belgium (merits), judgment of 23 July 1968, p. 33) and later stated that "the principle of equality of treatment is violated if the distinction has no objective and reasonable justification" (p. 34); Whereas, the Commission observes that the length of a sentence given for a criminal offense depends on the particular facts of each case and on the character and record of the offender; Whereas these elements, which obviously vary in different cases, justify and indeed make inevitable, different treatment of the different persons concerned; Whereas, the Court had before it the particular elements of the present case which included the circumstances of the offenses committed and the record of the applicant who had been convicted previously of a similar offense; whereas the Commission finds that a decision, as regards length of sentence, based on such elements has an objective and reasonable justification and does not therefore violate its principle of equality of treatment; Whereas, in the present case the applicant has not shown that the Court did not have regard, when fixing his sentence, to the particular elements of his case mentioned above; Whereas, the Commission therefore finds that there is no appearance of discrimination against the applicant in this respect and thus no violation of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14); whereas it follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas the applicant also complains that he was not given adequate medical treatment in prison; whereas the Commission has examined this complaint in relation to Article 3 and Article 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention; Whereas, however, it finds that an examination of the case at the present state of the file, including an examination ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the above Articles; Whereas also this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded; Whereas, finally, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the Austrian authorities refused to release him conditionally from prison 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), only the alleged violation of one of those rights 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 conditional release from prison is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decision No. 1421/62 of 19 June 1963; 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) Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE