NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 21 (b) the conduct of the investigation by the authorities (their diligence in dealing with the case and the manner in which they organised the investigation). (vii) The conduct of the judicial authorities: (a) in dealing with applications for release pending trial; (b) in completing the trial. 3. The Commission considers that a rational plan of this kind makes it possible to arrive at "a coherent interpretation without any appearance of arbitrariness". It also remarks that the opinion to be formulated in a particular dispute will be the result of an assessment of all the factors. It may in fact happen that the application of some criteria will tend to lead to the conclusion that a period of detention was reasonable, whereas other criteria will suggest the opposite and still others will not clearly point either way. The overall conclusion is said then to depend on the relative value and importance of the various factors; this does not rule out the possibility that one of them alone may carry decisive weight in some circumstances. The Commission adds that in the above criteria it has tried to cover all the situations of fact that habitually arise in cases concerning detention on remand, but that the list drawn up by it is by no means exhaustive as exceptional situations may justify the use of other criteria. 4. In the present case the Commission has applied the seven criteria in finding the facts and in evaluating them from the legal point of view; some of the facts seem to it to be relevant in relation to several criteria. 5. In the Commission’s view, application of the first criterion points to the conclusion that the length of Neumeister’s detention was excessive. The Commission considers that the six-months time-limit stipulated in Article 26 (art. 26) in fine of the Convention precludes it from expressing any opinion on whether the length of the Applicant’s first period of detention - two months and seventeen days (24 February - 12 May 1961) was "reasonable". On the other hand, it has considered the entire period of twenty-six months and four days that elapsed between 12 July 1962, when Neumeister was re-arrested, and 16 September 1964, when he regained his freedom. To the Government’s contention that the only relevant period of detention is that previous to the filing of the Application (12 July 1963) the Commission replies that its work would be defeated if, in a case like this one, where there is a continuing situation, it were not competent to consider new facts subsequent to the filing of an application - which facts could just as easily be favourable to the respondent State. 6. In the Commission’s view, the second criterion by its very nature relates to the situation facing national authorities at the time of detention; thus it cannot be applied in retrospect, i.e. in the light of the sentence passed by the trial judge.