NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 39 hundred pages each as well as a large number of other documents (statement of the facts, para. 19). C. The question whether there has been violation of the principle of "equality of arms" in the examination of Neumeister’s requests for release and whether there has in consequence been a violation of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) or Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) or possibly of these two Articles (art. 5-4, art. 6-1) read in conjunction 22. The Applicant has stated, and it has not been disputed by the Austrian Government, that the decisions relating to his detention on remand were given after the prosecuting authority had been heard in the absence of the Applicant or his legal representative on the written request made by them. The Court is inclined to take the view that such a procedure is contrary to the principle of "equality of arms" which the Commission, in several decisions and opinions, has rightly stated to be included in the notion of fair trial (procès équitable) mentioned in Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1). The Court does not consider however that this principle is applicable to the examination of requests for provisional release. 23. Certain members of the Commission have found in favour of the opposing view, expressing the opinion that such requests relate to "civil rights and obligations" and that any case relating to those rights must under Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) be given a fair hearing. This argument does not seem to be well founded. Quite apart from the excessively wide scope it gives to the concept of "civil rights", the limits of which the Commission has sought to fix on a number of occasions, it must be observed that remedies relating to detention on remand undoubtedly belong to the realm of criminal law and that the text of the provision invoked expressly limits the requirement of a fair hearing to the determination ... of any criminal charge, to which notion the remedies in question are obviously unrelated. Besides, Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) does not merely require that the hearing should be fair, but also that it should be public. It is therefore impossible to maintain that the first requirement is applicable to the examination of requests for release without admitting the same to be true of the second. Publicity in such matters is not however in the interest of accused persons as it is generally understood. 24. Nor is it possible to justify application of the principle of "equality of arms" to proceedings against detention on remand by invoking Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) which, while requiring that such proceedings shall be allowed, stipulates that they should be taken before a "court". This term implies only that the authority called upon to decide thereon must possess a judicial character, that is to say, be independent both of the executive and of the parties to the case; it in no way relates to the procedure to be followed. In