THE „MISSING BABIES“ CASES: CONSTITUTIONAL COURT vs. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS?

The author comments on the decision of the Constitutional Court in the Case of G. R. and draws attention on the fact that although the allegations and claims of the applicant in this case are substantially similar to the assessments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Zorica Jovanovic v. Sebia, the facts and circumstances established by the Constitutional Court in the constitutional appeal Case of G. R. are significantly different from the facts established by the European Court in the Case of Zorica Jovanovic v. Serbia. Therefore, the first and most important consequence of the Constitutional Court decision reviewed in this article is to learn that all so-called “missing babies” cases – both before the domestic public authorities as well as before the European Court of Human Rights – are not the same. Contrary to the findings of facts by the European Court of Human Rights in the judgment Zorica Jovanovic v. Serbia (it is noted that the body of the applicant’s son was never released to the applicant or her family, the cause of death was never determined, the applicant was never provided with an autopsy report or informed of when and where her son had allegedly been buried, and his death was never officially recorded) from the documentation that has been filed with the Constitutional Court follows that the constitutional complainant could not have had any doubts regarding the report on the death of his children or uncertainty about the “crucial factual or legal issues” i.e. credible information as to what really happened to his children. The Constitutional Court also found that all the neatly guided medical protocols with data on the health status of twins, undertaken diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, anamnesis and discharge lists were delivered to the complainant. Unfortunately, despite all the efforts of doctors to save two premature infants, who were born with serious deficits in their basic functions, a fatal outcome was inevitable. The Constitutional Court also found that the facts of birth and death of both children were properly recorded in the Birth and Death Registers, that the parents did not respond to the call of the medical institution to bury their children, and that there is a credible evidence that funeral was carried out in the organization and at the expense of the Institute for neonatology, where children were treated and where a lethal outcome was performed. Therefore, the foregoing considerations were sufficient to enable the Constitutional Court to conclude that allegations of the complainant that he had no credible information about what happened to his children were unfounded in regard to allegations of violation of the right to respect for family life under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.