NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 33 A. The question whether the length of Neumeister’s detention exceeded the reasonable time laid down in Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the Convention 3. Under Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) "everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c)" of that Article (art. 5-1c) "shall be entitled", inter alia, "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial"; it is also provided that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial". 4. The Court is of the opinion that this provision cannot be understood as giving the judicial authorities a choice between either bringing the accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release even subject to guarantees. The reasonableness of the time spent by an accused person in detention up to the beginning of the trial must be assessed in relation to the very fact of his detention. Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable. This is, moreover, the intention behind the Austrian legislation (Section 190 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 5. The Court is likewise of the opinion that, in determining in a given case whether or not the detention of an accused person exceeds a reasonable limit, it is for the national judicial authorities to seek all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in the decisions on the applications for release pending trial, and of the true facts mentioned by the Applicant in his appeals, that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention. 6. In the present case Neumeister was subjected to two periods of detention on remand, the first from 24 February 1961 to 12 May 1961, lasting two months and seventeen days, and the second from 12 July 1962 to 16 September 1964, lasting two years, two months and four days. Admittedly the Court cannot consider whether or not the first period was compatible with the Convention; for even supposing that in 1961 Neumeister availed himself of certain remedies and exhausted them, he did not approach the Commission until 12 July 1963, that is to say, after the sixmonth time-limit laid down in Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention had expired. That period of detention nevertheless constituted a first departure from respect for the liberty which Neumeister could in principle claim. In the event of his being convicted, this first period would normally be deducted from the term of imprisonment to which he would be sentenced (Section 55 (a) of the Austrian Criminal Code); it would thus reduce the actual length of imprisonment which might be expected. It should therefore be taken into