Application No. 14747/89
by Peter CHESTER
against the United Kingdom

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
1 October 1990, the following members being present:

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     F. ERMACORA
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
                Sir  Basil HALL
                MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                     C.L. ROZAKIS
                Mrs.  J. LIDDY
                MM.  L. LOUCAIDES
                     J.C. GEUS
                     A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
                     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                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 22 October 1988
by Peter CHESTER against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 March
1989 under file No. 14747/89;

        Having regard to:

     -  reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
        the Commission;

     -  the Commission's decision of 6 July 1989 to bring the
        application to the notice of the respondent Government
        and invite them to submit written observations on its
        admissibility and merits;

     -  the observations submitted by the respondent Government
        on 20 December 1989 and the observations in reply submitted
        by the applicant on 2 March 1990;

     -  the applicant's letter of 20 July 1990;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1954
and detained in H.M. Prison Wakefield, Yorkshire, where he is serving
a sentence of life imprisonment.

        He is represented before the Commission by Messrs.  Andrew &
Co., Solicitors, Lincoln.

        This is the applicant's third application to the Commission.
His first, No. 9488/81, primarily concerning censorship of prisoners'
correspondence, was the subject of a decision by the Committee of
Ministers that the applicant had suffered a violation of Article 8 of
the Convention (Resolution DH (86) 6).  His second, No. 12395/86, also
concerning censorship of his correspondence, is pending before the
Committee of Ministers, awaiting a decision under Article 32 of the
Convention.

        In the present application the applicant complained that while
he had been in the segregation unit he had been unable to attend
prison church services.  He claimed to be a victim of a violation of
Article 9 of the Convention.  The Government stated that the prison
chapel was an insecure, temporary building to which, for security
reasons, prisoners like the applicant, removed from association with
others, could not have access.  A new secure chapel is scheduled to be
built in 1991.  However, the prison chaplain conducts religious
services in the applicant's segregation unit.  The applicant may
attend these services and may be visited by the chaplain privately in
his cell, or by a pentecostalist minister.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 22 October 1988 and
registered on 8 March 1989.  After a preliminary examination of the
case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of
the application on 6 July 1989.  It decided to bring the application
to the notice of the respondent Government and invite the parties to
submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.  The
Government submitted their observations, after an extension of the
time limit, on 20 December 1989.  The applicant replied on 2 March
1990, having been granted legal aid by the Commission on
16 February 1990.

        On 20 July 1990 the applicant addressed a further
communication to the Commission.  He complained that, despite the fact
that the United Kingdom had been found by the Convention organs to
have breached his right to respect for correspondence in the past, the
Commission had failed to secure his rights or provide redress.  He now
considered that he was wasting his time bringing applications to the
Commission because he regarded the Convention machinery as inadequate
to secure his rights or effectively uphold the Convention.  He
regretted therefore that he could no longer pursue this present
application to the Commission.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

        The Commission notes the applicant's disappointment with the
Convention machinery and his wish to withdraw his application.  It
concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition,
within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character
affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention,
which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article
30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.  In this context the Commission
notes the private facilities for worship available to the applicant
and the Government's plans to build a secure chapel for communal
worship starting next year.

        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.



Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission


       (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)