THE FACTS

The facts presented by the parties and apparently not in dispute

between them may be summarised as follows:

The applicant is a British subject, born in London in 1938. He normally

resides in S., E., where he is a greengrocer, but is presently held in

the Prison St. G. in Brussels.

In April 1970 the applicant travelled to Belgium with two friends MM.

R. and D. The three men left England on .. April and arrived in Belgium

two days later, having passed through France. The applicant at once

returned to England and flew back to Belgium on .. April. On .. April,

while in the company of Mr. D., he was arrested by the police. He then

discovered that Mr R. had already been arrested and that all three men

were suspected of being involved in the distribution of forged dollar

notes.

On the afternoon of .. April the applicant, having been interviewed by

an examining magistrate, signed a statement written in Dutch. A formal

warrant of arrest was then issued which charged the applicant with

procuring and uttering, or attempting to utter 25 forged 50 dollar

notes. This was renewed and confirmed on .. April and again on .. May

1970. On the latter two occasions the charge was formally translated

for the applicant's benefit in the presence of his lawyer. On .. June

the applicant received a formal indictment written in Dutch.

This charged all three men:

A.   that with fraudulent intent they knowingly obtained forged

banknotes and uttered or attempted to utter them, that is to say:

1.   at least twenty-five 50 dollar notes, at Ostend on .. April 1970;

2.   one 50 dollar note at Veurne on .. April 1970.

B.   that they obtained certain goods by false pretences at Veurne on

.. April 1970.

The trial was held at Bruges on .. June 1970. The language of the court

was Dutch. However, the direct questions to the defendants and their

answers to such questions were translated. The applicant was acquitted

of count B above but convicted on counts A1 and A2. The two other

accused were convicted on all three counts. He himself was sentenced

to three years' imprisonment.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal at Ghent on .. September 1970. The

precise grounds of his appeal have not been presented to the

Commission. The appeal was dismissed. The applicant then applied,

by way of cassation proceedings, to the Supreme Court to nullify his

conviction. Again the precise grounds for the proceedings have not been

presented to the Commission. He was informed on .. March 1971 that the

application had been refused on .. February.

Complaints

The applicant alleges generally violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the

Convention in that he was convicted, on circumstantial evidence, of a

crime of which he was innocent. In particular, the applicant complains

that the charges set out in the indictment were never fully explained

or translated for him. He also complains that he was refused permission

by the examining magistrate and by the trial judge to produce certain

witnesses. He alleges violations, in these respects, of Articles 5 (2),

6 (3) (a), (d) and (e) of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

By a partial decision dated 15 December 1971, the Commission, while

declaring other parts of the present application inadmissible, decided,

in accordance with Rule 45, 3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give

notice of the application to the Government of Belgium and to invite

it to submit its observations in writing on the question of

admissibility insofar as the application related to the applicant's

complaints about the lack of translation facilities both before and

during his trial.

On 17 March 1972, the Government submitted its observations on

admissibility. The applicant's reply was submitted on 17 April 1972.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

The respondent Government submits that insofar as the applicant's

complaints relate to the lack of translation facilities, they are

inadmissible on two alternative grounds. First the applicant has not

exhausted his domestic remedies under Belgian law and secondly his

complaints are in any case manifestly ill-founded.

(a)  Exhaustion of domestic remedies

The Government submits that for the applicant to have satisfied Article

26 of the Convention he should have pleaded before the Belgian courts

the right which he alleges were violated in his case, in particular the

right to translation facilities. In support of this submission the

Government refers to the decisions of the Commission in applications

Nos. 263/57 and 2689/65 (the Delcourt case). The Government submits

that, neither before the trial court nor before the Court of Appeal nor

in the course of the cassation proceedings, did the applicant make any

such complaint. All that the applicant did was to protest his innocence

of the deeds with which he had been charged. The Government points out

that even in his letter introducing his complaint to the Commission the

applicant's claim was that he was innocent of the charge on which he

was being held, and that it was only later that he complained of the

lack of translation facilities.

In reply, the applicant does not deny that he did not complaint to the

trial court, the Court of Appeal or in the cassation proceedings about

the inadequacy of translation facilities, but he submits first that he

was not aware of his right to do so (of which, he says, he was not

informed) and, secondly, that he did not complain to the British

counsel and to his lawyer who conducted his defence and subsequent

appeal.

(b)  manifestly ill-founded

The respondent Government submits that, even if the applicant has

exhausted his domestic remedies, his complaints in this respect are

manifestly ill-founded. The Government does not deny that the charges

set out in the indictment were not translated for the applicant. The

Government submits, however, that the applicant was fully aware, from

the moment of his arrest, of the reasons for his arrest. It submits,

moreover, that according to the jurisprudence of the Commission a

complete description of all the charges does not need to be given to

an accused person at the moment of his arrest and that not only did the

applicant have, during his interrogation by the examining magistrate

and at his trial, the services of an interpreter, but also during his

trial he was defended by a local lawyer who could speak perfect

English.

In reply, the applicant states that, although he knew that the charges

against him concerned false money, he did not know their precise nature

or how they were formulated. He argues that since during his trial the

interpreter only interpreted the direct questions, something

prejudicial to him could have been said which he did not understand.

He denies that his lawyer spoke perfect English and says that he had

difficulty in communicating with him.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that, although innocent, he was convicted

as a result of lack of help with translation both before and during his

trial. Although the warrant of arrest, issued on .. April 1970, was

translated for him, the formal indictment issued on .. June was written

in Dutch and was not translated. At the trial on .. June only direct

questions were translated. He has also complained that he was not

allowed to produce certain witnesses. In these various respects the

applicant complains of breaches or Articles 5 (2) and 6 (3) (a), (d)

and (e) (Art. 5-2, 6-3-a, 6-3-d, 6-3-e) of the Convention. However,

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. The

mere fact that the applicant has submitted his case to the various

competent courts does not of itself constitute compliance with this

rule. It is also required that the substance of any complaint made

before the Commission should have been raised during the proceedings

concerned. In this respect the Commission refers to its constant

jurisprudence (see e.g. decisions on the admissibility of applications

No. 263/57 Yearbook, Vol. 1, pp. 146 and 147 and No. 1103/61, Yearbook,

Vol. 5, pp. 168, 186).

In the present case the applicant does not maintain that he raised

either in form or in substance, the proceedings before the Court of

Appeal at Ghent on 29 September 1970, or in the cassation proceedings

before the Supreme Court on 2 February 1971 the complaints which he now

makes before the Commission. Moreover, an examination of the case as

it has been submitted, 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 raising his

complaints in the proceedings referred to. It is true that the

applicant has stated that he complained of the lack of translation

facilities to his lawyer and to the British consul. However, whatever

may have been the reason for his lawyer's decision not to appeal as

regards the alleged lack of translation facilities, the fact that the

applicant complained to his lawyer and to the British consul can

obviously not be a sufficient reason for his failure to exhaust the

remedy open to him.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in

these respects be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3), of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THIS

APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE