[align=left]
3. K. H. Wemhoff, a German national born at Berlin in 1927, is
habitually resident there. At the time of his arrest he was a broker
by profession.

4. Being under suspicion of being involved in offences of breach of
trust, the Applicant was arrested on 9 November 1961. A warrant of
arrest (Haftbefehl) issued the next day by the District Court
(Amtsgericht) of Berlin-Tiergarten ordered his detention on remand.

The warrant stated that Wemhoff was under grave suspicion of having
incited breach of trust (Anstiftung zur Untreue) contrary to
Sections 266 and 48 of the German Criminal Code: as a customer of the
August-Thyssen Bank in Berlin he was said to have incited certain of
the Bank's officials to misappropriate very large sums of money. It
was also stated in the warrant that it was to be feared that, if left
at liberty, the Applicant would abscond and attempt to suppress
evidence (Section 112 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure), for:

- he was likely to receive a considerable sentence;

- persons implicated in the offences but not yet known to the
authorities might receive warning; and

- there was a danger that the Applicant would destroy those business
documents that it had not yet been possible to seize.

During the investigation the warrant was superseded successively by
two detention orders dated 28 December 1961 and 8 January 1962, both
issued by the District Court. These stated that Wemhoff was under
grave suspicion of continuing acts of fraud (fortgesetzter Betrug)
contrary to Section 263 of the Criminal Code, of prolonged abetment to
fraud (fortgesetzte Beihilfe zum Betrug) contrary to Sections 263 and
49 of the Code and of prolonged abetment to breach of trust
(fortgesetzte Beihilfe zur Untreue) contrary to Sections 266
and 49 of the Code.

5. In the course of 1961 and 1962 the Applicant asked at several
times to be released but all his requests were rejected by the Berlin
courts which referred to the reasons given in the warrants of arrest
mentioned above. In particular, in May 1962, he made an unspecified
offer of bail, which was rejected by the Court of Appeal
(Kammergericht) on 25 June 1962, on the grounds of a danger of
suppression of evidence (Verdunkelungsgefahr) and moreover because
bail could not dispel or diminish the danger of flight in the present
case. On 8 August 1962, he offered bail of 200,000 DM, but he
withdrew the offer two days later.

6. On the occasion of an ex-officio examination of the lawfulness of
the detention by the District Court, Wemhoff's lawyer asked on
20 March 1963 for conditional release of the Applicant, offering in
particular the deposit of identity papers. On the same day, however,
the court ordered the further detention of the Applicant on the
grounds given in the warrant of arrest.

The Applicant contested this decision on 16 April 1963, when he
invoked the provisions of the Convention for the first time. Asking
for release on any condition which might be thought to be necessary,
he held in particular that there was neither a danger of suppression
of evidence nor a danger of flight, for he had done all he could do to
clear up the transactions involved. He added that all his roots were
in West Berlin where he lived with his wife and child and where his
family had for one hundred and twenty years owned a jeweller's shop,
and which his father intended to convey to him very soon. He further
stressed that he had brought civil actions against his debtors and
therefore had to appear as plaintiff before several District Courts at
least five times a week. On the other hand, he pointed out that it
was not possible for him to flee from West Berlin: by reason of his
numerous previous journeys he was so well known at the Berlin airport
that he could not take an aeroplane there; having been detained for
several years in the Soviet Occupied Zone he could enter neither this
territory nor East Berlin. Finally the fact that he stayed at Berlin
after the discovery of his transactions by the Thyssen Bank on
27 October 1961 showed clearly that he never had any intention of
fleeing.

This appeal was rejected by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Berlin
on 3 May 1963, on the following grounds:

- the Applicant was under suspicion of having committed the alleged
offences;

- the facts had not been fully investigated and were particularly
involved;

- he appeared to have played a particularly significant part in all
the transactions under consideration so that he was likely to receive
a particularly severe sentence and might therefore be suspected of
intending to flee;

- he had important connections abroad and it was impossible, at the
present stage of the preliminary investigation, to deny the
possibility that he had assets there;

- the threat of his financial collapse increased the danger of flight
which was not diminished by the existence of his family links in
Berlin;

- while it was doubtful whether the danger of suppression of evidence
was sufficient to justify continued detention, certain reasons still
suggested that there was still such danger.

In a second appeal (weitere Beschwerde) of 16 May 1963, the Applicant
specified that he had been sentenced in 1953 by a tribunal in East
Germany to ten years penal servitude and had been released in
November 1957. Adding that he had declared his opposition to
communism on many occasions, the Applicant declared that it was also
impossible for him to flee by passing through the Soviet Occupied Zone
by train or by road.

From the judgment of the Regional Court of 7 April 1965 (paragraph 12,
infra), it appears that the conviction mentioned by the Applicant had
been in respect of the illegal transport of goods belonging to
refugees and of timber to West Berlin; this conviction was dated
7 March 1953.

The Appeal of 16 May 1963 was rejected by the Court of Appeal on
5 August 1963. While admitting that at this stage there might be some
doubt as to whether there was still a danger of suppression of
evidence, the Court, taking up the grounds of the decision against
which the appeal was lodged, pointed out that there was still a danger
that the Applicant would abscond; and that his continued detention did
not conflict with the requirements of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the
Convention. The Court added that it was to be feared that Wemhoff
would refuse to comply with the summons to appear before the judicial
authorities on account of his character on which a medical expert had
given an unfavourable opinion, which had been confirmed by his conduct
while in detention pending trial.

7. Several applications for conditional release filed by the
Applicant in 1963 and 1964 were also rejected by the Berlin courts on
grounds similar to those stated by the Court of Appeal on
5 August 1963. In particular, this court found, in a decision of
22 June 1964, that the risk that the Applicant would abscond was even
greater than in August 1963. As a matter of fact, he was likely to
receive an appreciably higher sentence than had formerly been thought,
as in the meantime the Public Prosecution had extended the accusation
against the Applicant to certain offences under the Bankruptcy Code
some of which he was said to have committed while in detention. On
the other hand, the court considered that it was not yet possible to
forecast whether the Applicant, in the event of a conviction, would be
conditionally released in accordance with Section 26 of the Criminal
Code after serving two-thirds of his detention and whether, in the
event of such conviction, the time he had spent in detention pending
trial would be counted as part of the sentence.
[/align]