28 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT Section 7 of the Austrian Constitution and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, in order to apply the criterion it would be necessary to establish exactly what effect detention had had on Neumeister’s life. The Commission is said to have neglected to do this. It has not put forward any arguments in support of its conclusion that the deterioration in the Applicant’s financial position was mainly or entirely due to his detention; in this respect it has merely cited his unsubstantiated statements and an isolated passage from a decision of the Judges’ Chamber of the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna. Similarly, the Commission is said not to have given any details of the difficulties which Neumeister claims to have encountered in preparing his defence. More generally, it has lost sight of the fact that any detention necessarily entails hardships for the detained person. 23. According to the Government, in connection with the fourth criterion, the Commission has presented no more than part of the result of its investigations, without mentioning in particular certain facts of which it was aware and which, properly viewed, would have cast a different light on the Applicant’s conduct. The Commission is said to have made the mistake of applying the fourth criterion from a subjective angle, forgetting that the attitude of an accused during proceedings is an objective factor. It is true that Neumeister did not try to slow down the proceedings by his appeals. Nevertheless, they did cause delays, since on each occasion the record had to be handed over to the competent authorities. Moreover, Neumeister is said to have done nothing to speed up the proceedings. On the contrary, he did not give an accurate account of his part in the transactions in question. The Government lastly points out that, although the fourth criterion also covers the conduct of other accused persons, the Commission has considered the Applicant’s behaviour in isolation. The Government holds that if several persons suspected of complicity are prosecuted simultaneously, each must bear the consequences of the others’ actions. It therefore complains that the Commission has considered the prosecution of the Applicant separately from the rest of the case, whereas the Investigating Judge, when giving evidence before it as a witness, stated that the reason why he had not investigated Neumeister’s case separately was that some of the offences with which he was charged were inextricably bound up with the activities of the other accused. According to the Government the Commission would, if its fact-finding had been complete and correct and its application of the criterion legally accurate, necessarily have expressed the opinion that the length of detention had been reasonable. 24. On the fifth criterion, the Government agrees with the Commission’s conclusion. It considers however that the Commission has not taken sufficiently into consideration the difficulties inherent in the criminal