38 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT interrogation of Neumeister nor any confrontation of any importance with the other accused persons whose statements are said to have caused the Applicant’s second arrest, but between 24 June 1963 and 18 September of the same year, the Judge did not interrogate any of the numerous co-accused or any witness, nor did he proceed to any other measure of investigation. Lastly, it is indeed disappointing that the trial was not able to commence before 9 November 1964, that is a year after the closing of the investigation, and even more disappointing that, following such a long investigation, the trial court was compelled, after sitting for several months, to order further investigations which were not all caused by the statements of the accused Huber, who had remained silent until the trial. 21. The Court does not however consider these various facts sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the reasonable time laid down in Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention was exceeded in the present case. It is beyond doubt that the Neumeister case was of extraordinary complexity by reason of the circumstances mentioned above (statement of the facts, para. 20). It is, for example, not possible to hold the Austrian judicial authorities responsible for the difficulties they encountered abroad in obtaining the execution of their numerous letters rogatory (arguments of the Government, para. 24). The need to wait for replies probably explains the delay in closing the investigation, despite the fact that no further measures of investigation remained to be conducted in Austria. The course of the investigation would probably have been accelerated had the Applicant’s case been severed from those of his co-accused, but nothing suggests that such a severance would here have been compatible with the good administration of justice (arguments of the Government, section 25 in fine). Neither does the Court believe that the course of the investigation would have been accelerated, if it had been allocated to more than one judge, even supposing that this had been legally possible. It also notes that, although the designated Judge could not in fact be relieved of the financial cases of which he had been seized before 1959, many other cases which would normally have fallen to him after this date were assigned to other judges (arguments of the Government, para. 25). It should moreover be pointed out that a concern for speed cannot dispense those judges who in the system of criminal procedure in force on the continent of Europe are responsible for the investigation or the conduct of the trial from taking every measure likely to throw light on the truth or falsehood of the charges (Grundsatz der amtswegigen Wahrheitserforschung). Finally, it is obvious that the delays in opening and reopening the hearing were in large part caused by the need to give the legal representatives of the parties and also the judges sitting on the case time to acquaint themselves with the case record, which comprised twenty-one volumes of about five