[align=left]
8. The Commission does not think, as regards the fourth criterion,
that the Applicant's conduct contributed substantially to the length
of his detention.

9. In evaluating the fifth criterion the Commission considers that
the case in question was of very great complexity, not only on account
of the nature and number of the financial transactions involved but
also because of the number of accused and witnesses who had to be
heard and the ramifications of the case both in Germany and abroad.
According to the Commission these circumstances support and conclusion
that the length of detention was reasonable.

10. The examination of the sixth and seventh criteria does not, in
the opinion of the Commission, lead to the conclusion that the
criminal proceedings against the Applicant were substantially
prolonged through any fault of the authorities.

11. In the light of the overall evaluation of these various criteria,
and in consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the
Commission attaches particular importance to the actual length of
detention and concludes that the Applicant was not brought to trial
within a "reasonable" time or released pending trial, and that
consequently he has been a victim of a violation of Article 5 (3)
(art. 5-3).

12. It should be added that in the Commission's view the continued
detention on remand of the Applicant, ordered by the competent courts
because of the danger of flight and suppression of evidence, was
lawful within the meaning of Article 5 (1) (c) (art. 5-1-c).

13. The Commission maintains that Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) poses
questions of interpretation similar to those raised by Article 5 (3)
(art. 5-3), in particular as regards the "time" mentioned in
Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1). However, in the opinion of the Commission,
the question whether the time was "reasonable" for the purposes of
Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) or of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) must be judged
differently in the two cases; the former, being intended to safeguard
the physical freedom of the individual, requires stricter application
than the latter, the object of which is to protect the individual
against abnormally long judicial proceedings, irrespective of the
question of the actual detention. In the present case, the criminal
procedure related to extremely complex facts; it was not unduly
prolonged by the German judicial authorities. Therefore, the
Commission arrives at the conclusion that even if the period concerned
were considered to run from 9 November 1961 until 17 December 1965,
Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) has not been violated in the criminal
proceedings against the Applicant.

14. At the hearing of 9 January 1968, the Commission made the the
following submissions:
[/align]