[align=left]
On 7 April 1965, the Regional Court found Wemhoff guilty of a
particularly serious case of prolonged abetment to breach of trust
(fortgesetzte Beihilfe zur Untreue, Sections 266 and 49 of the
Criminal Code) and sentenced him to six years and six months penal
servitude (Zuchthaus) and a fine of 500 DM, the period of detention on
remand being counted as part of the sentence. The court ordered that
the Applicant should be kept in detention on remand for the reasons
stated in the detention order of 7 July 1964.

Judgment was passed on the Applicant at the same time as on six other
accused. The judgment comprised 292 pages.

13. After conviction, Wemhoff again applied for provisional release
in April 1965, but the Regional Court rejected his application on
30 April 1965. His appeal against this decision was rejected by the
Court of Appeal on 17 May 1965. That court found that it was very
probable that he had secreted large sums of money and that he was
greatly in debt and insolvent, so that there was a danger that he
would yield to the temptation to evade prosecution.

14. On 16 August 1965, the Applicant requested provisional release
against security of 50,000 DM (20,000 DM in cash and 30,000 DM in the
form of a bank guarantee to be put up by his father). After
discussing the matter at the Public Prosecutor's Office, Wemhoff
amended his request two days later, offering security of 100,000 DM.
This offer was accepted by the Regional Court on 19 August 1965. The
Applicant, however, did not deposit this security but on
30 August 1965, offered a bank guarantee of 25,000 or 50,000 DM which
was to be provided by his father. The Regional Court rejected this
offer on 6 September 1965. The Applicant contested this decision and
offered security of 25,000 DM, but the Court of Appeal dismissed his
appeal on 29 October 1965 on the ground that a security of this sum
was not sufficient to dispel the danger of flight which was still
present.

On 19 October 1965, while these proceedings were still in progress,
Wemhoff again asked the Regional Court to order his release if
necessary against security of 10,000 DM. The court rejected the
application on 1 December 1965. It found that the temptation for
Wemhoff to abscond was still very great, for:

- the sentence remaining to be served was considerable;

- the Applicant was insolvent and deeply in debt, which he would
probably never be able to settle; and

- the suspicion that he had secreted away 200,000 DM, as stated in the
detention order of 7 July 1964, had grown stronger during the trial.

15. On 17 December 1965 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof)
rejected an appeal (Revision) filed by the Applicant in July 1965
against his conviction by the Regional Court. The time he had spent
in detention since the judgment of 7 April, in so far as it exceeded
three months, was to be counted as part of the sentence.

16. On 8 November 1966, after serving two-thirds of his sentence,
Wemhoff was conditionally released (in accordance with Section 26 of
the Criminal Code) under an Order of the Regional Court dated
20 October 1966.

17. In his original Application lodged with the Commission on
9 January 1964, the Applicant alleged that the length of his detention
on remand violated his right under Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3)
of the Convention to be brought to trial within a reasonable time or
released pending trial. He complained of the fact that the decisions
of the District Court dated 20 March 1963, of the Regional Court dated
3 May 1963 and of the Court of Appeal dated 5 August 1963 had not put
an end to the detention. He claimed compensation for the damage
suffered and reserved the right to specify later the exact amount of
his claim.

On 2 July 1964 the Commission declared the Application admissible in
respect of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3), and also, ex officio, with
reference to Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1).

Subsequent to his Application, Wemhoff made three other complaints.
On 28 September 1964 the Commission declared one of them inadmissible
as being manifestly ill-founded; the other two were not upheld by the
Applicant.

18. Following the decision declaring admissible the original
Application, a Sub-Commission ascertained the facts and unsuccessfully
sought a friendly settlement (Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention)
(art. 28, art. 29).

19. Before the Commission and the Sub-Commission, the Applicant
maintained that the purpose of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) was to avoid
an excessively long deprivation of liberty because of the extent and
length of the investigation. He stated that detention on remand was a
"special sacrifice" imposed upon persons, whether guilty or not, for
the maintenance of an effective administration of justice. As,
according to the Applicant, this involves a derogation from the
principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 (2)
(art. 6-2), the State has not the right to continue such detention
until the social position, the livelihood, the health, the
professional and family life of the individual concerned were
destroyed, consequences which his detention had brought about.
Pointing out that a remand prisoner's uncertainty as to his fate is a
mental strain that becomes heavier with the passage of time, the
Applicant also mentioned Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention.

Wemhoff also submitted that it would have been possible to deal with
his case more speedily, in particular, by dividing it, by employing
several public prosecutors and by accelerating the work of the
experts. He added that he himself had not caused any substantial delay
in the proceedings but, on the contrary, assisted the Public
Prosecutor's Office in unravelling the transactions in issue.

Furthermore, the Applicant submitted that neither the length of his
anticipated sentence nor his civil liability for the loss suffered by
the Thyssen Bank constituted sufficient grounds for suspecting him of
intending to escape. His offers of bail and the fact that after the
discovery of the Thyssen affair on 17 October 1961, he remained with
his family in Berlin until his arrest on 9 November, proved that he
had no intention of resorting to flight.
[/align]