NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 19 In his original application in July 1963, Neumeister affirmed that the Investigating Judge, having to deal simultaneously with several large cases, including that of Stögmüller, was unable to complete his task within a reasonable time as provided in Articles 5 (3) and 6 (1) (art. 5-3, art. 6-1). Neumeister does not appear to have invoked the latter provision subsequently on the point in question. Lastly, according to the Applicant, the procedure in Austria for considering applications for release pending trial (Sections 113 (2) and 114 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is not in accordance with the principle of "equality of arms" (Waffengleichheit) safeguarded by Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention. Here Neumeister referred to the opinions expressed by the Commission in the Pataki and Dunshirn cases (Applications 596/59 and 789/60). He also maintained that a judicial organ that followed the procedure in question could not pass for a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4). 31. After the failure of the attempt to arrange a friendly settlement made by the Sub-Commission, the plenary Commission drew up a report as required by Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention. The Report was adopted on 27 May 1966 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 August 1966. The Commission expressed therein the following opinion which it later confirmed before the Court: (a) by eleven votes against one vote: the detention of the Applicant lasted beyond a "reasonable time", with the consequence that there was, in the case, a violation of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the Convention; (b) by six votes against six votes with the President’s casting vote (Rule 29 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission): Neumeister’s case was not heard "within a reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1); (c) by eight votes against two votes, with two abstentions: the proceedings regarding the Applicant’s release complied with Articles 5 (4) and 6 (1) (art. 5-4, art. 6-1). The Report contains several individual opinions, some concurring, some dissenting. Arguments of the Commission and the Government 1. In the Commission’s view, Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the Convention secures the right of every person detained in accordance with Article 5 (1) (c) (art. 5-1-c) either to release pending trial or to trial within a reasonable time. If a person detained on remand is provisionally released, then Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) is thereby complied with as regards the future; if he is not released, he must be tried within a reasonable time. The Commission infers that detention must not be prolonged beyond a reasonable period. The most important problem, then, is said to be to interpret the words "reasonable time". The Commission finds the term vague and lacking in precision; thus