issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 005 (2015)
13.01.2015
Removal of tissue from a deceased man’s body without the knowledge or
consent of his wife amounted to degrading treatment
v. Latvia (application no. 61243/08).
The case concerned the removal of body tissue from Ms Elberte’s deceased husband by forensic
experts after his death, without her knowledge or consent. Unknown to Ms Elberte, pursuant to a
State-approved agreement, tissue had been removed from her husband’s body after her husband’s
autopsy and sent to a pharmaceutical company in Germany for the creation of bio-implants. She
only learned about the course of events two years after her husband’s death when a criminal
investigation was launched in Latvia into allegations of wide-scale illegal removal of organs and
tissues from cadavers. However, domestic authorities eventually did not establish any elements of
crime.
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 8 (right for respect to private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights;
a violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.
The Court found in particular that Latvian law regarding the operation of the consent requirement
on tissue removal lacked clarity and did not have adequate legal safeguards against arbitrariness:
although it set out the legal framework allowing the closest relatives to express consent or refusal in
relation to tissue removal, it did not clearly define the corresponding obligation or discretion of
experts to obtain consent. Indeed, the manner in which the relatives’ right to express their wishes
was to be exercised and the scope of the obligation to obtain consent were the subject of
disagreement among the domestic authorities themselves. The Court further concluded that
Ms Elberte had had to face a long period of uncertainty and distress concerning the nature, manner
and purpose of the tissue removal from her husband’s body, underlining that, in the special field of
organ and tissue transplantation, the human body had to be treated with respect even after death.
Principal facts
The applicant, Dzintra Elberte, is a Latvian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sigulda
(Latvia).
On 19 May 2001, Ms Elberte’s husband was killed in a car accident. On the following day, his body
was transported to the Forensic Centre, where an autopsy was carried out.
Ms Elberte first saw her deceased husband when his remains were transported back from the
Forensic Centre for the funeral, which took place on 26 May 2001. His legs had been tied together
and he was buried that way. About two years later, the Security Police opened a criminal inquiry into
the illegal removal of organs and tissue between 1994 and 2003 in Latvia and contacted Ms Elberte,
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
