26 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT (3) and 6 (1) (art. 5-3, art. 6-1) in Neumeister’s case is based on faulty factfinding and an erroneous interpretation of the Convention. 18. With regard to the interpretation of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) and its application to the present case, the Government contests first of all the method adopted by the Commission. The literal meaning of the word "reasonable" ("raisonnable") is said to show clearly that the question whether the length of detention on remand was excessive can be settled only in the light of the circumstances of the case and not on the basis of a set of preconceived "criteria", "elements" or "factors". It is maintained that this opinion is in accordance with the Commission’s previous practice and the intentions of the drafters of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3). The Government moreover thinks that the system of criminal procedure of the State concerned is of great importance in this context. In its view, the authors of the Convention were convinced that the two systems of criminal procedure the Anglo-American and the Continental - in force in the member States of the Council of Europe were entirely in harmony with the Convention, despite the profound differences between them. The Government deduces that Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) is not to be considered from the angle of just one given legal system. It is said to follow that an examination of whether or not the length of a detention pending trial was "reasonable" must never ignore the "common standard" of that legal system to which the High Contracting Party concerned belongs. According to the Government, a decision that the Convention was not respected in Neumeister’s case would mean indirectly that the Austrian law of criminal procedure is not in accordance with the principles of the Convention, whereas in fact it is very similar to that of most other countries on the continent of Europe. The Government also complains that the Commission’s fact-finding was carried out in the light of the criteria chosen by itself. It maintains that the Commission, starting from a preconceived legal position, based its opinion not on all the facts of the case but only on those facts which it needed to answer certain questions on which it considered the solution to the legal problem to depend. In so doing it failed to establish or evaluate several important facts. 19. The Government also set against the Commission’s reasoning the following considerations, which are said to demonstrate the absence of any violation of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3). 20. To the first of the seven "criteria", namely the actual length of detention, the Government raises objections of principle. In its opinion, this "criterion" tends to bring into the Convention an absolute limit on the length of detention on remand, which is precisely what the Contracting Parties sought to avoid by using the words "reasonable time". Moreover, on closer examination, it is not a true criterion, for it prejudges the conclusion to which the other criteria are supposed to lead. In any case, the Commission did not adopt it in its previous decisions.