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