8 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT that it was therefore unnecessary to examine the amount of the security proposed. Neumeister challenged this decision on 15 January 1963. In addition to the arguments expounded in his request of 23 July 1962 and in his appeal of 4 August 1962, he pointed out: - that the amount of the loss wrongfully attributed to him in his view, had decreased considerably, from more than forty million schillings (24 February 1961) to a little more than eleven and a half million (12 May 1961) and was later to fall to 6,748,510 schillings (decision of 27 December 1962); - that certain persons detained in connection with other more important cases had recovered their freedom against the deposit of security; - that he had never sought to abscond, for instance between his release (12 May 1961) and his second arrest (12 July 1962), and, more especially, by taking advantage of his stay in Finland; - that only a few hours had elapsed between his appearance before the Investigating Judge, on the morning of 12 July 1962 and his arrest; - that this brief interval of time had not left him any real possibility of annulling the preparations for his journey, preparations which in any case he did not wish to forgo without attempting one last approach to the Public Prosecution; - that he had already undergone more than nine months’ detention on remand (24 February 1961-12 May 1961 and 12 July 1962-15 January 1963), another factor which, in his opinion, argued against the danger of flight; - that all his professional and family interests were centred around Vienna where, moreover, his wife had just opened a ladies’ ready-made dress shop. The Court of Appeal of Vienna rejected the appeal on 19 February 1963. Referring to its decision of 10 September 1962, it observed that the situation had not changed in a way favourable to Neumeister since then. It was true that the amount of loss attributed to him had diminished, but this sum did not include that for which he might be held responsible in a case concerning the sham export of machines (Kreisverkehr der Textilien der Firma Benistex). Moreover, it had not decreased to such a point as to be of decisive influence on the sentence which Neumeister would have to anticipate in the event of conviction. From this the Court concluded that the danger of flight remained so great that even the possible supplying of guarantees could not be considered (indiskutabel ist) and that such guarantees could in no way eliminate this danger. 15. Four weeks earlier, more precisely on 21 January 1963, the Investigating Judge had proceeded to another confrontation between Rafael and Neumeister who had substantially confirmed their respective statements of 10 and 11 July 1962. According to the Applicant the confrontation lasted