30 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT evidence of the Investigating Judge by itself, without subsequently evaluating it from a legal point of view. In the Government’s opinion, such an evaluation would have shown that the Judge and his assistants had acted with the necessary care and diligence even although some delay was inevitable, since two of the main accused had escaped abroad and it was necessary to issue international "wanted" notices in order to locate them. In general terms the Government considers that no effort was spared to hasten the investigation. It points out that the prosecutions relating to certain acts or accused were severed or dropped under Sections 57 (1) and 34 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It thinks that nothing more could have been done in this respect than was done. In its view, the various offences in dispute were so closely inter-related that it was not possible to dissociate Neumeister’s case from the cases of the other accused. Moreover, to have done so would have been contrary to the legal principle of connexity (Section 56 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and would in fact have delayed the proceedings, for the Court would have been obliged to compare the allegations of all the accused in order to check their veracity. 26. With regard to the seventh criterion the Government states that it is in no position to furnish any critical comment: it complains that the Commission has completely failed to state the conclusions it draws from the facts it considers to have found in its Report. In particular, the Government maintains that the decision of 8 January 1964, making the Applicant’s release subject to guarantees of two million schillings was entirely in accordance with Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the Convention, since there was a danger that he would abscond and since he had probably enriched himself considerably as a result of the offences with which he is charged. According to the Government the Commission could not have failed, if it had correctly evaluated the relevant facts, to recognise that the period of detention in dispute was reasonable. 27. From the foregoing, the Government concludes that, even if the method chosen by the Commission is used, no violation of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) can be detected in this case, for the arguments suggesting that the period of detention was reasonable far outweigh those to the contrary. This is said to be particularly true of criteria 4, 5 and 6, the decisive ones in this case. The Government expresses surprise that the Commission has not stated on what date it thinks the length of Neumeister’s detention to have become excessive. 28. In the Government’s view, the Commission has exceeded its competence in considering whether or not Neumeister was heard within a "reasonable time" as required by Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention. The Applicant is said to have made no complaint in this respect and the