CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6EB62E48 { width:10.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE2D3E960 { margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s436F61AC { width:13.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA0B2652E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF PETROVIĆ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA (Applications nos. 32514/22, 33284/22 and 15910/23)     JUDGMENT Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private and family life • Continuing failure to ascertain fate of newborn babies who were allegedly abducted in State-run hospitals Art 46 • Execution of judgment • General measures • Respondent State required, within one year from the judgment’s finality, to take all appropriate measures, preferably by means of a lex specialis , to establish a mechanism providing individual redress to all parents in a situation such as, or sufficiently similar to, that of the applicants Art 41 • Just satisfaction • No award made as applicants claimed an award for non ‑ pecuniary damage as an alternative to an indication for measures under Art   46   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 14 January 2025   FINAL   30/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Petrović and Others v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Jovan Ilievski,   Davor Derenčinović,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   32514/22, 33284/22 and 15910/23) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Croatian nationals, Ms Slađana Petrović, Ms   Janja Šarčević and Ms Marica Šesto (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The three applications concern women who suspect that their newborn children, born between 1986 and 1994, were abducted in State-run hospitals and unlawfully given up for adoption (compare Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08, ECHR 2013). The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants, Ms Slađana Petrović (“the first applicant”), Ms Janja Šarčević (“the second applicant”) and Ms Marica Šesto (“the third applicant”), are Croatian nationals whose details are set out in the appended table. They were represented before the Court by Ms A. Galić Kondža, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 4.     The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows.         The applicants’ general situation 5.     In 1990, 1993 and 1994, respectively, the first and second applicants gave birth in a hospital in Vukovar. 6 .     Vukovar is a Croatian town near the Serbian border which was heavily attacked by the Yugoslav People’s Army and paramilitary Serbian armed forces during the armed conflict in Croatia from August to November 1991. It was finally occupied at the end of November 1991. Between 1992 and 1996 Vukovar was part of the United Nations Protected Area. In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES), which included Vukovar. On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began (see Jularić v. Croatia , no. 20106/06, §§ 7-8, 20 January 2011 ). 7.     The third applicant gave birth in 1986 in a hospital in Slavonski Brod, a town in Croatia. 8.     After giving birth, the three applicants had regular contact with their babies in the hospital, until they were informed by the hospital personnel that the babies had fallen ill and died. In particular, the babies born in Vukovar in 1990 and 1993 had been taken to a hospital in Novi Sad in Serbia, where they had allegedly died, whereas the baby born in Vukovar in 1994 had allegedly died in the Vukovar hospital. The baby born in 1986 in Slavonski Brod had allegedly died in the Slavonski Brod hospital. 9 .     In late 2018 and in 2019 the applicants saw news reports about women in Serbia searching for their “missing babies”, who had been born in the early 1990s in good health and who, according to the doctors, had suddenly fallen ill and died shortly after birth or had urgently been transferred to another hospital where they had died, without the body being given to the family. The applicants suspected that their babies had shared the same fate. They contacted a non-governmental organisation, Parents of Missing Babies of Vojvodina, and started making enquiries with the hospitals and the local authorities and asking for documents. The information gathered led them to suspect that their babies had not died but had been given up for unlawful adoption. The applicants then lodged criminal complaints with the State Attorney’s offices in Croatia, arguing that their babies had been abducted by the hospital personnel. In 2022 and 2023 their criminal complaints were rejected on the grounds that prosecution for the alleged offence had become time-barred. 10 .     The second and third applicants told their stories in a news report of 28 February 2022 (see at https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/provjereno-bebe-nestajale-u-srbiji-hrvatskoj-i-bih---697586.html, accessed on 1 October 2024). According to that news report, apart from the three applicants, there are other women who suspect that their babies were abducted in the 1980s and early 1990s from State-run hospitals in Croatia. Some of those babies had been taken from a hospital in Croatia to a hospital in Novi Sad in Serbia, and had allegedly died there.       The applicants’ individual circumstances    The first applicant (Ms Slađana Petrović, application no. 32514/22) 11 .     On 27 July 1993 the first applicant gave birth to a baby boy in a hospital in Vukovar (see paragraph 6 above). At that time the hospital was called the Saint Sava Vukovar Health Centre. Today it is called the Dr Juraj Njavro National Memorial Hospital. 12 .     The first applicant’s baby boy was born prematurely, and he was taken to a hospital in Novi Sad in Serbia. The first applicant visited her son in the Novi Sad hospital and considered that he was progressing well. On 8 August 1993 she received a telegram informing her that her son had died. The first applicant and her husband went to the Novi Sad hospital, which did not give them the body of their baby but only medical documentation (autopsy report). 13 .     On 13 December 1994 the first applicant gave birth to a baby girl in the same Vukovar hospital (see paragraphs 6 and 11 above). On 15 December 1994 the baby was found to have jaundice and was prescribed therapy. On 18   December 1994 the baby was supposed to be transferred to the Novi Sad hospital for treatment, but on the same day the first applicant was informed that her baby had died. The first applicant was in a state of shock after losing a second baby born in the same hospital. 14 .     The first applicant’s husband insisted on being given the baby girl’s body. The Vukovar hospital gave the body to him for burial, and the first applicant’s mother allegedly noticed that the body belonged to a baby older than theirs. The first applicant never saw the body herself. 15.     On 8 November 2018 the first applicant asked the Vukovar hospital to give her the entire medical documentation concerning her childbirths in 1993 and 1994. 16 .     On 13 November 2018 the first applicant gave a statement to the Vukovar police, submitting that in 1993 and 1994 she had given birth to two babies in the Vukovar hospital who had allegedly died, which she suspected not to be true. She stated that she had never received the body of her baby boy born in 1993. As regards her baby girl born in 1994, she stated that her mother had noticed that the body given to the family had belonged to a baby older than theirs. The first applicant asked that the body of the baby girl, buried at the cemetery in Borovo (Croatia), be exhumed and that a DNA analysis be conducted in order to verify that it belonged to her child. 17 .     On 16 November 2018 the Vukovar police made a note stating that they had consulted the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru ), and that the latter had reported that exhumation would not be possible because the parents did not know the exact location where the baby’s body was buried; that in any event exhumation would be fruitless given the passage of time; and that there was no need to submit a special report because there had been no indication that a criminal offence had been perpetrated. The police note further stated that the person performing burials at the Borovo cemetery had reported that he knew that several bodies had been buried at a specific location at the cemetery, and that one of them could be that of the baby buried in 1994. The note also stated that the pathology department of the Vukovar hospital had reported that the hospital had not kept a database of tissues taken for the purposes of autopsy in 1994. 18 .     On 6 December 2018 the Vukovar hospital forwarded to the first applicant the available medical documentation concerning her childbirths in 1993 and 1994. 19 .     On 4 June 2021 the first applicant gave a statement to the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office submitting, inter alia , that her baby girl born in 1994 had never been registered with the birth registry, and that the death certificate issued by the hospital stated that she had died on 18   December 1994 at 10.40 p.m., whereas the discharge letter stated that she had stopped breathing at 9 a.m. The first applicant further specified the exact location of the burial of the baby’s body given to the family in 1994 and asked for an exhumation. An unknown woman working in the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office told the first applicant that there was no point in submitting a criminal complaint. In the same conversation the first applicant learned that the woman knew the doctor who had signed the medical documents concerning her children, and that the woman had also been working in the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office at the time of the events. 20 .     On 15 November 2021 the Vukovar hospital forwarded to the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office the documents concerning the first applicant’s baby girl born in 1994, namely: medical history, birth history, newborn status report, report of the Neonatology Department, referral for inpatient treatment and the pathologist’s report of 19 December 1994. 21 .     On 28 February 2022 the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office established that there were no grounds for further action owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution. In particular, it held that the matter, if proven, could amount to the criminal offence of taking away a minor under Article 94 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia (see paragraph 47 below), for which the law prescribed a prison sentence of three months to three years. Accordingly, and pursuant to Article   91 § 6 of the Basic Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia (see paragraph 46 below), the absolute statutory limitation period for prosecution of that offence expired six years after the date on which the offence had been perpetrated, which, in the view of the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office, was 18 December 1994. 22 .     The first applicant is also in possession of the following documents: -     proceedings for acknowledgment of paternity of the baby boy conducted in September 1994 in Vukovar (one year after his death); the Vukovar Social Welfare Centre official had allegedly confirmed to the first applicant that the law did not allow paternity proceedings to be conducted after the child had already died (see paragraph 51 below) and that any information about the child’s adoption could only be given to the adopted child; and -     a letter from the Vukovar hospital dated 30 June 2020 stating that there was no information about an autopsy of the first applicant’s babies having been performed, and that the current hospital personnel had not worked in the hospital at the relevant time and therefore had no knowledge of the events. 23 .     On an unspecified date, the first applicant lodged a request in Serbia under Article 15 of the 2020 Law on establishing facts about the status of newborn children suspected to have disappeared from maternity wards in the Republic of Serbia (“the Zorica Jovanović Implementation Act”, set out in detail in Mik and Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 9291/14 and 63798/14, §   27, 23 March 2021), in order to find her baby boy born in 1993. The Court has no information about the outcome of those proceedings.    The second applicant (Ms Janja Šarčević, application no. 33284/22) 24.     On 24 January 1990 the second applicant gave birth to a baby girl in a hospital in Vukovar, a town in Croatia which was at that time under the control of the Croatian authorities (see paragraph 6 above). 25.     The second applicant breastfed her baby several times and everything seemed normal to her. On 26 January 1990 an unknown woman came to the second applicant’s room and told her that her baby had “narrowed intestines from the stomach onwards” and would have to be taken to a hospital in Novi Sad in Serbia for emergency surgery. The second applicant stated that she wished to accompany her baby, but the woman said that that was not possible. 26.     On 31 January 1990 the second applicant received a phone call from the hospital in Novi Sad informing her that her baby had died from pneumonia and sepsis a day earlier (30 January) at 11.30 p.m. 27 .     The following day (1 February 1990), the second applicant’s husband went to the Novi Sad hospital, where he was shown a baby’s body. He was allegedly shown the body of a baby with dark hair, whereas the second applicant’s baby had blue eyes, fair skin and blonde hair, with a grey lock on the left side of the head above the forehead. The doctor told the second applicant’s husband that the bodies of such small babies were not given to the parents for burial in order to spare them the emotional pain. The second applicant’s husband returned home in a state of shock without the baby’s body. 28 .     On 24 October 2019 the second applicant asked the Vukovar hospital to forward her the entire medical documentation concerning her childbirth in 1990 and the transport of her child to Novi Sad. 29 .     On 6 November 2019 the Vukovar hospital gave the second applicant the following documents: the first page of the second applicant’s medical history; a description of the birth; an excerpt from the list of newborn babies, and discharge letters for the second applicant and the baby, the latter of which stated that one day after birth the baby had started vomiting, that a radiology examination had been performed, and that it had been agreed that the baby would be transferred to the Novi Sad hospital. 30 .     On 21 November 2019 the second applicant asked the Vukovar hospital to forward her the radiology report mentioned in the discharge letter, in order to see the diagnosis on the basis of which her baby had been referred to Novi Sad, the name of the doctor who had referred her baby to Novi Sad, and the names of the persons who had taken her baby there. On 25 November 2019 the Vukovar hospital replied that it did not have that information. 31.     The hospital in Novi Sad (Serbia) likewise did not give the second applicant any documents on the basis of which her baby had been referred there from the hospital in Vukovar. They gave her an unsigned autopsy report stating that the baby had undergone an operation on 28 January 1990 but that she had developed pneumonia and died. The second applicant allegedly also received an oral reply that her baby was buried somewhere “around the hospital”. The death register in Serbia states that the second applicant’s baby was female, without indicating the baby’s name. 32 .     On 12 November 2019 the second applicant lodged a criminal complaint in Serbia, submitting that her baby might have been abducted by the Novi Sad hospital personnel. On 27 January 2020 the Novi Sad Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office ( Više javno tužilaštvo u Novom Sadu ) rejected her complaint on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred. 33.     On 6 October 2021 the second applicant gave a statement to the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office, submitting the documents she had gathered and stating that she suspected that her baby had been abducted. 34.     On 8 October 2021 she complained to the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru ) of unprofessional and biased behaviour on the part of the prosecutor with whom she had lodged her criminal complaint, who had allegedly told her that there was no point in submitting a criminal complaint because the prosecution had become time-barred; that, even if the child were to be found, she probably would not want to meet her biological mother; and that in any event, the second applicant did not know who was responsible for the disappearance of her child. On 17   November 2021 the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office notified the second applicant that no irregularities had been found in the work of the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office. 35 .     On 30 November 2021 the Vukovar hospital forwarded to the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office the medical documents concerning the birth of the second applicant’s child. 36 .     On 1 March 2022 the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office dismissed the second applicant’s criminal complaint on the grounds that the absolute statutory limitation period for prosecution of the alleged criminal offence of taking away a minor under Article 94 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia (see paragraph 47 below) had expired six years after the date on which the offence had been perpetrated, which, in the view of the Vukovar Municipal State Attorney’s Office, was 26 January 1990.    The third applicant (Ms Marica Šesto, application no. 15910/23) 37.     On 30 November 1986 the third applicant gave birth to a baby boy in the Slavonski Brod hospital in Croatia. She breastfed her baby, who seemed perfectly healthy to her. The day after giving birth (on 1 December 1986), she was informed by the hospital doctor that her baby had a heart defect, and that he had died. 38 .     The third applicant was kept in the hospital until 4 December 1986, and was never shown the baby’s body. Her husband insisted on seeing the body, and the hospital gave him the body of a baby which he buried on 3   December 1986. The body handed over to him had a blue mark covering half of the face, whereas the third applicant’s baby allegedly had no such mark on his face. The third applicant and her husband were in a state of shock and sorrow and did not raise any suspicions regarding the statements of the hospital personnel. Upon being released from the hospital on 4 December 1986, the third applicant was not given a discharge letter for her or for her baby. 39 .     In 2019 the third applicant started asking for documents from the hospital and the local authorities, which showed the following: -     the birth registration form issued by the Slavonski Brod hospital on 2   December 1986 was struck through in several places and other handwritten information had been added instead; the local birth registry allegedly told the third applicant that this had occurred when someone had come to inspect the original documents; -     the second page of the birth registration form indicated that the birth had been registered on 29 November 1986, whereas the third applicant’s baby was born on 30 November 1986; -     the stamp on the birth registration form bore the date of 11 May 1989, that is, three years after the third applicant’s baby had been born; -     the extract from the register of births (given to the third applicant by the Slavonski Brod hospital on 15 March 2021) listed the birth of a baby boy on 30 November 1986 under no. 2082, whereas the third applicant’s baby boy had had the number 2025 on his birth bracelet, in the birth description document and in the document recording the newborn’s body temperature; -     the death certificate, which was left unsigned by the person who had certified the death, stated that the baby was born on 30 November 1986 at 9.20 p.m., and that he had died on 1 December 1986 at 9.20 p.m., exactly twenty-four hours later; -     the report on the baby’s death stated that the cause of death was a congenital heart defect and respiratory distress syndrome and that this had been established by an autopsy, whereas no autopsy of the third applicant’s baby’s body had ever been performed; -     the radiologist’s report had been issued on 28 April 1987, five months after the third applicant’s baby’s death, and the forename indicated in the report was different from that of the third applicant’s baby; -     the medical history report stated that the third applicant’s baby had manifested cyanosis immediately after birth (blue skin and nails), whereas the third applicant stated that she had breastfed her baby on 30 November and 1 December 1986 and had noticed no marks whatsoever on his skin and nails; -     the death certificate stated that the death had been registered in the local death register on 6 January 1987 under number 7, whereas the birth certificate stated that the death had been registered in the local death register under number 41; and -     the address certificate stated that the baby had had a registered address in Croatia from 29 December to 29 December 1986, whereas he had died on 1 December 1986. 40.     According to the third applicant, police officials had told her that they could not give her the baby’s personal identification number because of data protection considerations, but this could not be considered normal in the event that the child had indeed died. 41.     The third applicant and her husband had allegedly also asked for the baby’s body to be exhumed but were told that the exhumation would be fruitless, having regard to the passage of time. 42.     In their criminal complaint lodged on 4 July 2022, the third applicant and her husband stated that they suspected the Slavonski Brod hospital personnel of having taken away their baby boy on 30 November or 1   December 1986 and faked his death, thereby committing the criminal offences of child abduction or human trafficking. 43 .     On 17 January 2023 the Slavonski Brod Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Slavonskom Brodu ) rejected their criminal complaint on the grounds that the statutory limitation period for the prosecution of the alleged offence of taking away a minor under Article 94 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia (see paragraph 47 below) had expired three years after the date on which the offence had been perpetrated, that is, on 1 December 1989, and further held that the criminal offence of human trafficking set out in Article 106 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   49 below) had not existed at the material time. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         Domestic law and practice    Constitution 44.     The relevant provision of the Croatian Constitution ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 56/90, as amended) reads as follows: Article 35 “Everyone has the right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life, dignity, reputation and honour.”    Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 45 .     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Krivični zakon Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije , Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, no. 44/76, with further amendments) read as follows: Mandatory application of a more lenient criminal law Article 4 “(1)     The law in force at the time of the commission of the criminal offence shall apply to the perpetrator of the criminal offence. (2)     If the law was changed one or more times after the commission of the criminal offence, the law which is more lenient for the perpetrator shall be applied.” Statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution Article 95 “(1)     Unless otherwise specified in this law, criminal prosecution may not be initiated after: ... 4)     five years from the commission of a criminal offence for which, in accordance with the law, imprisonment for more than three years may be imposed; 5)     three years from the commission of a criminal offence for which, in accordance with the law, imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed; ...” Running and interruption of the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution Article 96 “(1)     The statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution shall start running from the date on which the criminal offence was committed. (2)     The statutory limitation period shall not run during the time when, in accordance with the law, the prosecution cannot start or be extended. ... (6)     The statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution shall expire in any event when twice as much time has passed as is required by law for the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution.”    Basic Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia 46 .     The relevant provisions of the Basic Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia ( Osnovni krivični zakon Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, no. 31/1993) read as follows: Article 90 “(1)     Unless otherwise specified in this Code, criminal prosecution may not be initiated after: ... 5)     three years from the commission of a criminal offence for which, in accordance with the law, imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed, ...” Article 91 “(1)     The statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution shall start running from the date on which the criminal offence was committed. ... (6)     The statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution shall expire in any event when twice as much time has passed as is required by law for the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution.”    Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia 47 .     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia of 1993 ( Krivični zakon Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, no. 32/1993) read as follows: Abduction Article 41 “(1)     Whoever abducts a person with the intention of forcing him or her or someone else (not) to do something ... shall be punished by imprisonment for one to ten years. (2)     Whoever commits the act referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article against a child or minor ... shall be sentenced to at least three years’ imprisonment. ...” Taking away a minor Article 94 § 1 “Whoever unlawfully detains or takes away a minor from a parent, guardian, institution or person to whom he or she is entrusted ... shall be punished by imprisonment for three months to three years.” Change in family status Article 95 § 1 “Whoever changes the family status of a child by subterfuge, replacement or in some other way shall be punished by imprisonment for three months to three years.”     Criminal Code of 1997 48 .     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of 1997 ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, no. 110/1997) read as follows: Abduction Article 125 “(1)     Whoever unlawfully imprisons another person, keeps him or her imprisoned or otherwise deprives him or her of or restricts his or her freedom of movement with the aim of forcing him or her or someone else (not) to do something ... shall be punished by imprisonment for six months to five years. (2)     If the criminal offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article was committed against a child or a minor ... the perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for one to ten years. ...” Taking away a child or a minor Article 210 “(1)     Whoever takes a child or a minor from a parent, guardian, person or institution to whom he or she is entrusted, unlawfully keeps the child or minor or persuades the child or minor to go to him or her shall be punished by imprisonment for six months to three years. (2)     If a child or a minor has left the territory of the Republic of Croatia as a result of the criminal offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for three months to five years. ...” Change of family status Article 211 § 1 “Whoever changes the family status of a child by subterfuge, replacement or in some other way shall be punished by imprisonment for one to three years.”     Criminal Code of 2011 49 .     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of 2011 ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, nos. 125/2011, with further amendments) read as follows: Article 106 “(1)     Whoever, by using force or threat, deception, fraud, abduction, abuse of power or a difficult position or relationship of dependence, by giving or receiving monetary compensation or other benefits in order to obtain the consent of a person who has control over another person, or otherwise recruits, transports, transfers, hides or receives a person or exchanges or transfers control over a person for the purpose of exploiting his or her labour through forced labour or servitude, by establishing slavery or a similar relationship, or for the purpose of exploiting him or her for prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, including pornography, or for the purpose of entering into an illegal or forced marriage, or for taking parts of his or her body, or for using him or her in armed conflicts or for committing an illegal act, shall be punished by imprisonment for one to ten years. (2)     Whoever recruits, transports, transfers, hides or accepts a child, or exchanges or transfers supervision over a child for the purpose of exploiting his or her labour through forced labour or servitude, by establishing slavery or a similar relationship, or for the purpose of exploiting him or her for prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, including pornography, or for the purpose of entering into an illegal or forced marriage or for illegal adoption, or for taking parts of his or her body, or for using him or her in armed conflicts, shall be punished by the penalty set out in paragraph 1 of this Article. (3)     If the criminal offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article was committed against a child, or if the criminal offence referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article was committed by an official in the performance of his or her duties, or was committed in relation to a large number of persons, or knowingly endangering the life of one or more persons, the perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for three to fifteen years. ...”    Civil Obligations Act 50 .     The relevant provisions of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 35/2005, with further amendments) provide: Just monetary compensation Article 1100 “(1)     In the event of a violation of personality rights, the court, if it finds that the severity of the violation and the circumstances of the case justify it, shall award just monetary compensation, regardless of compensation for pecuniary damage, and even when there is no pecuniary damage. (2)     When deciding on the amount of just monetary compensation, the court shall take into account the gravity and duration of the physical pain, mental pain and fear caused, and the purpose served by such compensation, while also ensuring that it does not favour aspirations which are not compatible with its nature and social purpose. ...” Persons who are entitled to just monetary compensation in the event of death or particularly severe disability Article 1101 § 1 “In the event of the death or particularly severe disability of a person, members of his or her immediate family (spouse, children and parents) shall have the right to just monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage.”    Marriage and Family Relations Act 51 .     The relevant provisions of the Marriage and Family Relations Act ( Zakon o braku i porodičnim odnosima , Official Gazette nos. 11/1978, 27/1978, with further amendments), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 110 “Paternity of a child cannot be recognised after the child’s death, unless the child has left descendants.”        Domestic case-law 52 .     The Government relied on the following judgments in support of their argument that a civil action for damages was an effective domestic remedy for the applicants’ complaint. The Supreme Court’s judgment no. Rev 3325/14-2 of 16 May 2017 was given in a case in which the plaintiffs had sought compensation from a hospital for the non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violation of their personality rights in connection with the death of their baby during birth, caused by omissions on the part of the hospital personnel. The Supreme Court upheld the second-instance court’s judgment granting the plaintiffs’ claim. The Supreme Court’s decision no. Rev x 130/2016-2 of 11 October 2017 was given in a case in which the plaintiffs had sought compensation from a hospital for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violation of their personality rights in connection with the death of their wife/mother and stillborn son/brother caused by omissions on the part of the hospital personnel. The Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and instructed them to examine the actions of the assisting medical personnel on duty at the material time. The Zagreb County Court’s judgment no. Gž 763/2021-2 of 23 March 2021 was given in a case in which the plaintiffs had sought compensation from a hospital for the non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violation of their right to private and family life in connection with not receiving information from the hospital about the cause of death of their stillborn baby, and about the location where the baby’s body was buried. Relying on the Court’s judgment in Marić v. Croatia (no. 50132/12, 12 June 2014), the Zagreb County Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment granting the plaintiffs’ claim. The Zagreb County Court’s decision no. Gž 2446/2022-6 of 15 November 2022 was given in a case in which the plaintiffs had sought compensation from the State for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the killing of their family member in 1995, allegedly by soldiers of the Croatian army. The Zagreb County Court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and instructed that court to establish whether the killing of the plaintiffs’ family member had amounted to a war crime, this being of importance for examining whether a longer statutory limitation period should apply to their civil claim for damages. 53 .     The Government relied on the following Constitutional Court decisions in support of their argument that a constitutional complaint was an effective domestic remedy for the applicants’ complaint. In decision no. U-IIIBi-1732/2019 of 14 July 2020, the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged against the criminal courts’ judgments acquitting a private party of the criminal offence of making threats against the complainant. It found that the manner in which the criminal-law mechanism had been applied had been compliant with the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. In decision no. U-IIIBi-5099/2020 of 23 March 2021, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the procedural aspect of Article   8 of the Convention on account of the protracted length of criminal proceedings against a doctor who had operated on the complainant, leaving the latter’s leg paralysed, as a result of which the prosecution had become statute-barred, and on account of the protracted length of the civil proceedings for damages which the complainant had instituted against the hospital. The Constitutional Court awarded the complainant a sum of money for the non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violation found. In decision no. U-IIIBi-5910/2021 of 12 April 2022, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the procedural aspect of Article   8 of the Convention on account of the protracted length of criminal proceedings against the complainants’ father on charges of (sexual) abuse. The Constitutional Court awarded the complainants a sum of money for the non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violation found. In decision no. U-IIIBi-2808/2021 of 12 April 2022, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the procedural aspect of Article   8 of the Convention on account of the protracted length of minor-offence proceedings against a private party on charges of physically attacking the complainant. The Constitutional Court awarded the complainant a sum of money for the non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violation found and ordered the minor-offences court to decide on the case within sixty days from the publication of the Constitutional Court’s decision.       International law    Enforced disappearance 54 .     The relevant provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (1/Res/47/133, 18   December 1992) read: Article 17 § 1 “Acts constituting enforced disappearance shall be considered a continuing offence as long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and the whereabouts of persons who have disappeared and these facts remained unclarified.” 55.     The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance has issued, inter alia , the following General Comment on the above Declaration: “General Comment on Article 17 of the Declaration (E/CN.4/2001/68/18 December 2000) ... 28.     The definition of ‘continuing offence’ (para. 1) is of crucial importance for establishing the responsibilities of the State authorities. Moreover, this article imposes very restrictive conditions. The article is intended to prevent perpetrators of those criminal acts from taking advantage of statutes of limitations. ...” 56 .     The relevant provisions of the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) read as follows: Article 1 “1.     No one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance. 2.     No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance.” Article 2 “For the purposes of this Convention, ‘enforced disappearance’ is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.” Article 3 “Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to investigate acts defined in article 2 committed by persons or groups of persons acting without the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State and to bring those responsible to justice.” Article 4 “Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under its criminal law.” Article 8 “Without prejudice to article 5, 1.