THE FACTS The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a British subject born in London in 1938. He normally resides in S., Essex, but is presently held in the Prison St. G. in Brussels. According to the applicant's statements and the documents supporting him, he is a greengrocer who, in April 1970 travelled to Belgium with two friends, MM. R. and D. The tree men left England on .. April and arrived in Belgium two days later, having passed through France. The applicant at once returned to England for business reasons 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 were suspected of being involved in the distribution of forged dollar notes. The applicant claims that he was interviewed by an examining magistrate who was hostile and appeared to be biased against him. The magistrate asked the applicant to sign a statement written in Flemish without the presence of a lawyer or consul. A formal warrant of arrest was issued on .. April and 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 Flemish. He states that the charges set out in the indictment were not fully explained to him and that he was never certain of their exact nature. He has supplied a copy of this document which bears no indication that it was translated for him. The trial was held at Bruges on .. June and the three men were, in fact, charged with the possession of forged banknotes and with having uttered a forged note on .. April. At the trial, the direct questions to the defendants were translated but other parts of the proceedings were not translated. The applicant thought that defamatory remarks were being made about him but he has never been able to confirm this. The applicant was acquitted on the charge of uttering but convicted on the charge of possession. His friends were convicted on both charges. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He appealed to the Court of Appeal at Ghent on .. September 1970. The appeal was dismissed. The applicant has not stated exact grounds for the appeal, which was left in the hands of his Belgian lawyer. He states that he has no documents relating to this appeal. It does appear that he wrote to his lawyer on 20 July 1970 complaining about the lack of translation. He applied, by way of cassation proceedings, to the Supreme Court to nullify his conviction but was informed on .. March 1971 that the application had been refused on .. February. The applicant also states that the conditions of his imprisonment are unsatisfactory. He claims that because he is not a Belgian he is kept in a remand prison where there are no proper facilities for work or recreation. He states that he spends most of his time in solitary confinement and that he has been given no translation of the Prison Rules. The authorities were most un-co-operative when his mother travelled from England to visit him and were reluctant to allow her to see him. The applicant wished to be moved to another prison at Ostend so that his wife can visit him. Complaints The applicant complains that he has been convicted, on circumstantial evidence, of a crime of which he is innocent. He complains that the indictment was not translated to him, that only direct questions were translated during the trial and that during his subsequent imprisonment he has been kept in solitary confinement and that contact with his family has been difficult. He alleges violations of Article 5 and 6 of the Convention. THE LAW 1. The applicant has complained of the conditions of his imprisonment. The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they have been submitted by him. However, after considering the conditions as a whole, the Commission finds that they do not generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is as a whole manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. 2. The applicant has complained that he has been convicted on circumstantial evidence of a crime of which he is innocent. He complains that the indictment was not translated for him, and that only direct questions were translated during the trial. The Commission considers that these complaints may give rise to a question under Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) of the Convention. The Commission finds that an examination of the file at the present stage does not give the information required for determining the question of admissibility. The Commission notes that it is not clear whether the question of translation facilities was raised during the applicant's appeals but that he is no longer in contact with his lawyer and that he may be put to expense if requested to submit court decisions. The Commission therefore decides, in accordance with Rule 45, 3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of these complaints to the Government of Belgium and to invite the Government to submit its observations on the question of admissibility. In the meanwhile, the Commission decides to adjourn its examination of this part of the application. For these reasons, the Commission 1. Declares inadmissible the applicant's complaints set out in the last paragraph of the statement of facts. 2. Decides to adjourn its examination of the applicant's other complaints.