16 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT On 13 August 1964, Neumeister informed the Judges’ Chamber that his daughter, Maria Neumeister and another named person were prepared to stand surety for him (Bürgen), the former putting up 850,000 schillings and the latter 150,000. The persons concerned confirmed this on the following day. After carrying out a check on their solvency (Tauglichkeit), the Judges’ Chamber accepted their offer on 16 September 1964. Some hours later the Applicant made the solemn undertaking provided for by Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deposited his passport with the Court in conformity with the decision of 8 January 1964, which, on this point, was still in force, and was set at liberty. 23. The various decisions concerning Neumeister’s detention on remand were all reached in accordance with Sections 113 (2) (first instance) and 114 (2) (appeal) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the end of a hearing not open to the public in the course of which the Public Prosecution was heard in the absence of the Applicant and his legal representative (in nichtöffentlicher Sitzung nach Anhörung der Staatsanwaltschaft bzw. der Oberstaatsanwaltschaft). 24. On 9 October 1964, the date for the opening of the trial (Hauptverhandlung) was fixed for 9 November. On 18 June 1965, after one hundred and two days of the hearing, the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna, constituted as a mixed lay and legal court (Schöffengericht), postponed the completion of the trial indefinitely so that the investigation might be completed. Having received a number of requests from the Public Prosecution and from some of the accused including Neumeister, it gave effect to several of them and ex officio called for certain additional measures of investigation to be taken. Herbert Huber’s attitude seems to have played a major part in making this supplementary investigation necessary: whereas during the preliminary investigation he had maintained a strict silence, he explained his conduct in detail before the judges; according to Neumeister, Huber’s statements were favourable to him while highly incriminating as regards Rafael. The Court nevertheless indicated that, in its opinion, some of the new enquiries and hearings of witnesses ordered by it should have been conducted earlier during the preliminary investigation. 25. In February and July 1965, Neumeister made the journey to Strasbourg with the permission of the Regional Court, in connection with the application filed by him before the European Commission of Human Rights. His passport is said to have been restored to him some days before the second of these journeys. 26. The additional investigation could not be conducted by Judge Leonhard who had appeared before the Court as a witness, (Section 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure): it fell to his permanent substitute. It lasted for more than two years and was not therefore completed until after the adoption, on 27 May 1966, of the Commission’s Report. The