5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Sigulda. She is the widow of Mr Egils Elberts (“the applicant’s husband”), a Latvian national who was born in 1961 and who died on 19 May 2001. 6.  On 19 May 2001 the applicant’s husband was involved in a car accident in the parish of Allaži. An ambulance transported him to Sigulda Hospital but he died on the way there as a result of his injuries. He was placed in the mortuary at Sigulda Hospital. The applicant’s mother-in-law, who worked at Sigulda Hospital and thereby learned about her son’s death immediately, stayed with his body at Sigulda Hospital until it was transported to the State Centre for Forensic Medical Examination (Valsts tiesu medicīnas expertīžu centrs – “the Forensic Centre”) in Riga. 7.  At 5 a.m. on 20 May 2001 the body was delivered to the Forensic Centre in order to establish the cause of death. Between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. an autopsy was carried out and numerous injuries were found to the deceased’s head and chest, including several broken ribs and vertebrae. There were bruises on his right shoulder, thigh and knee. A forensic medical expert, N.S., classified the injuries as serious and life-threatening and established a causal link between them and his death. 8.  According to the Government, after the autopsy, N.S. had verified that there was no stamp in Mr Elberts’ passport denoting his objection to the use of tissue from his body and he had removed a 10 cm by 10 cm piece of dura mater (the outer layer of the meninges) from Mr Elberts’ body. According to the applicant, N.S. could not have checked whether or not there was a stamp in Mr Elberts’ passport because at that time it had been at their home in Sigulda. The applicant submitted that the area of tissue removed was larger than 10 cm by 10 cm and that it was not only dura mater that had been removed. 9.  On 21 May 2001 the prosecutor’s office issued a permit to bury the body. According to the applicant, on 21 or 22 May 2001 her sister had arrived at the Forensic Centre with a view to obtaining the certificate showing the cause of death, in relation to which she had signed the Forensic Centre’s registration log. On 22 May 2001 her sister submitted that document, together with Mr Elberts’ passport, to the relevant authority in Sigulda to obtain the death certificate. 10.  According to the Government, on 25 May 2001 the body of Mr Elberts had been handed over to a relative. According to the applicant, his body had been handed over to another person who was merely helping with its transportation prior to the funeral. 11.  On 26 May 2001 the funeral took place in Sigulda. The applicant first saw her deceased husband when his remains were transported back from the Forensic Centre for the funeral. She saw that his legs had been tied together. He was buried that way. The applicant herself was pregnant at the time with their second child. 12.  The applicant was not aware that tissue had been removed from her husband’s body until about two years later, when the security police (Drošības Policija) informed her that a criminal inquiry had been opened into the illegal removal of organs and tissue, and that tissue had been removed from her husband’s body. 13.  On 3 March 2003 the security police opened a criminal inquiry into the illegal removal of organs and tissue for supply to a pharmaceutical company based in Germany (“the company”) between 1994 and 2003. The following sequence of events was established. 14.  In January 1994 the predecessor institution of the Forensic Centre concluded an agreement with the company to cooperate for the purpose of scientific research. Under the agreement, various types of tissue were to be removed from deceased persons ‒ selected by the Forensic Centre in accordance with international standards ‒ and sent to the company for processing. The company transformed the tissue received into bio-implants and sent them back to Latvia for transplantation purposes. The Ministry of Welfare agreed to the content of the agreement, reviewing its compliance with domestic law on several occasions. The prosecutor’s office issued two opinions on the compatibility of the agreement with domestic law and, in particular, with the Law on the protection of the body of a deceased person and the use of human organs and tissue (“the Law”). 15.  Any qualified member of staff (“expert”) of the Forensic Centre was allowed to carry out the removal of tissue on his or her own initiative. The Head of the Thanatology Department of the Forensic Centre was responsible for their training and the supervision of their work. He was also responsible for sending the tissue to Germany. The experts received remuneration for their work. Initially, the tissue removal was performed at forensic divisions located in Ventspils, Saldus, Kuldīga, Daugavpils and Rēzekne. After 1996, however, tissue removal was carried out only at the Forensic Centre in Riga and the forensic division in Rēzekne. 16.  Under the agreement, experts could remove tissue from deceased persons who had been transported to the Forensic Centre for forensic examination. Each expert was to verify whether the potential donor had objected to the removal of organs or tissue during his or her lifetime by checking his or her passport to make sure that there was no stamp to that effect. If relatives objected to the removal, their wishes were respected, but the experts themselves did not attempt to contact relatives or to establish their wishes. Tissue was to be removed within twenty-four hours of the biological death of a person. 17.  Experts were obliged to comply with domestic law but, according to their own testimonies, not all of them had read the Law. However, the content of it was clear to them as the Head of the Thanatology Department of the Forensic Centre had explained that removal was allowed only if there was no stamp in the passport denoting a refusal for organs or tissue to be removed and if the relatives did not object to the removal. 18.  In the course of the inquiry, the investigators questioned specialists in criminal law and the removal of organs and tissue. It was concluded that, generally speaking, two legal systems exist for regulating the removal of organs and tissue – “informed consent” and “presumed consent”. On the one hand, the Head of the Forensic Centre, the Head of the Thanatology Department of the Forensic Centre and the experts at the Forensic Centre were of the opinion that at the relevant time (that is to say, after the Law’s entry into force on 1 January 1993) there had existed a system of “presumed consent” in Latvia. These persons were of the view that the system of presumed consent meant that “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. The investigators, on the other hand, were of the opinion that section 2 of the Law gave a clear indication that the Latvian legal system relied more on the concept of “informed consent” and, accordingly, removal was permissible only when it was (expressly) allowed, that is to say when consent had been given either by the donor during his or her lifetime or by the relatives. 19.  More particularly, as regards the removal of tissue from the applicant’s husband’s body, on 12 May 2003 the expert N.S. was questioned. Subsequently, on 9 October 2003 the applicant was recognised as an injured party (cietušais) and she was questioned on the same date. 20.  On 30 November 2005 it was decided to discontinue the criminal inquiry into the activities of the Head of the Forensic Centre, the Head of the Thanatology Department of the Forensic Centre and the Head of the Rēzekne Forensic Division in respect of the removal of tissue. The above considerations were noted down in the decision (lēmums par kriminālprocesa izbeigšanu) and differences concerning the possible interpretations of domestic law were resolved in favour of the accused. Moreover, the 2004 amendments to the Law were to be interpreted to mean that there was a system of “presumed consent” in Latvia. It was concluded that sections 2 to 4 and 11 of the Law had not been violated and that no elements of a crime as set out in section 139 of the Criminal Law had been established. 21.  On 20 December 2005 and 6 January 2006 prosecutors dismissed complaints lodged by the applicant and held that the decision to discontinue the inquiry was lawful and justified. 22.  On 24 February 2006 a superior prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office examined the case file and concluded that the inquiry should not have been discontinued. He established that the experts at the Forensic Centre had breached provisions of the Law and that the tissue removal had been unlawful. The decision to discontinue the inquiry was quashed and the case file was sent back to the security police. 23.  On 3 August 2007 the criminal inquiry, in so far as it related to the removal of tissue from the body of the applicant’s deceased husband, was discontinued owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period of five years. However, the legal ground given for this discontinuation was the absence of any elements of a crime. On 13 August 2007 the applicant was informed of that decision. On 19 September and 8 October 2007, in response to complaints lodged by the applicant, the prosecutors stated that the decision had been lawful and justified. 24.  On 3 December 2007 another superior prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General examined the case file and concluded that the inquiry should not have been discontinued. She established that the experts at the Forensic Centre had breached provisions of the Law and that the tissue removal had been unlawful. The decision to discontinue the inquiry was once again quashed and the case file was again sent back to the security police. 25.  On 4 March 2008 a new decision to discontinue the criminal inquiry was adopted, based on the legal ground of the expiry of the statutory limitation period. On 27 March 2008, in response to a complaint from the applicant, the prosecutor once again quashed the decision. 26.  A fresh investigation was carried out. During the course of that investigation it was established that in 1999 tissue had been removed from 152 people; in 2000, from 151 people; in 2001, from 127 people; and in 2002, from 65 people. In exchange for the supply of tissue to the company, the Forensic Centre had organised the purchase of different medical equipment, instruments, technology and computers for medical institutions in Latvia and the company had paid for these purchases. Within the framework of the agreement, the total monetary value of the equipment for which the company had paid exceeded the value of the removed tissue that was sent to the company. In the decision of 14 April 2008 (see paragraph 27 below) it was noted that the tissue was not removed for transplantation purposes in accordance with section 10 of the Law but was actually removed for transformation into other products to be used for patients not only in Latvia, but also in other countries. 27.  On 14 April 2008 the criminal inquiry was discontinued owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period. In the decision it was noted that whenever an expert from the Rēzekne Forensic Division, for example, had interviewed the relatives prior to the removal of organs or tissue, he had never expressly informed them of such potential removal or indeed obtained their consent. According to the testimonies of all the relatives, they would not have consented to the removal of organs or tissue had they been informed and their wishes established. According to the experts’ testimonies, they had merely checked passports for stamps and had not sought relatives’ consent as they had not been in contact with them. It was also noted that with effect from 1 January 2002 information was to be sought from the population register, which the experts had failed to do. It was concluded that the experts, including N.S., had contravened section 4 of the Law and had breached the relatives’ rights. However, owing to the five‑year statutory limitation period (which started running on 3 March 2003), the criminal inquiry was discontinued and on 9 May and 2 June 2008 the prosecutors upheld that decision in response to complaints lodged by the applicant. The applicant lodged a further complaint. 28.  In the meantime, the experts, including N.S., lodged an appeal contesting the reasons for the discontinuation of the criminal inquiry (kriminālprocesa izbeigšanas pamatojums). They contested their status as the persons against whom the criminal inquiry concerning unlawful tissue removal had been instigated because they had not at any stage been informed of this inquiry and argued that, accordingly, they had been unable to exercise their defence rights. On 26 June 2008, in a final decision, the Riga City Vidzeme District Court upheld their appeal (case no. 1840000303), quashed the 14 April 2008 decision and sent the case file back to the security police. The court found as follows.
“Notwithstanding the fact that a certain proportion of the transplants were not returned to be used for patients in Latvia, there is no evidence in the case file that they were used for processing into other products or for scientific or educational purposes. Therefore, the court considers that there is no evidence in the case file that the removed tissue was used for purposes other than transplantation ...
There is no evidence in the case file demonstrating that the removal of tissue for transplantation purposes had been carried out in disregard of the deceased person’s refusal, as expressed during his lifetime and recorded in accordance with the law in force at the relevant time, or in disregard of any refusal expressed by the closest relatives.
Taking into account the fact that legislative instruments do not impose any obligation on the experts who carry out the removal of tissue and organs from deceased persons’ bodies to inform persons of their right to refuse tissue or organ removal, the court considers that the experts did not have any obligation to do so; by not informing the deceased person’s relatives of their intention to remove tissue, the experts did not breach the provisions of the [Law], as effective from 1994 to March 2003. Section 4 of the [Law] provides for the right of the closest relatives to refuse the removal of the deceased person’s organs and/or tissue, but does not impose an obligation on the expert to explain this right to the relatives. Given that there are no legislative instruments which impose an obligation on the experts to inform relatives of their intention to remove tissue and/or organs and to explain to the relatives their right to object by refusing their consent, the court considers that a person cannot be punished for a failure to comply with an obligation which is not clearly laid down in a legislative instrument in force. Therefore, the court finds that the experts, by carrying out the tissue and organ removal from the deceased, did not breach ... the [Law].
... The court finds that the experts’ actions did not constitute the elements of a crime proscribed by section 139 of the Criminal Law; therefore, it is possible to discontinue the criminal proceedings for exonerating reasons – namely on the grounds of section 377(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law ‒ owing to the absence of the elements of a crime.” 29.  On 2 July 2008 the superior prosecutor responded to a complaint lodged by the applicant. The superior prosecutor admitted that the inquiry had taken a long time owing to numerous complaints against the decisions. However, she did not find any particular circumstances which would indicate that it had been unduly protracted. At the same time, she informed the applicant that the court had quashed the 14 April 2008 decision upon the appeal by the experts. She further stated that a new decision to discontinue the criminal inquiry had been adopted on 27 June 2008 and that the applicant would soon be duly notified. 30.  Indeed, the applicant received the 27 June 2008 decision a few days later. It was reiterated in that decision that the experts did not have any legal obligation to inform anyone about their right to consent to or refuse organ or tissue removal. Section 4 of the Law provided for the right of the closest relatives to object to the removal of the deceased person’s organs and tissue, but did not impose any obligation on the expert to explain these rights to the relatives. A person could not be punished for a failure to comply with an obligation which was not clearly laid down in a legal provision; the experts had therefore not breached the Law. The applicant lodged further complaints. 31.  On 15 August 2008 the prosecutor replied, inter alia, that there were no circumstances indicating the desecration of a human body. At the same time, she explained that the experts had performed actions in connection with the unlawful tissue removal in order to use the tissue for medical purposes. After the removal of tissue, other material was commonly implanted to restore the visual integrity of dead bodies. Therefore, the criminal inquiry had concerned actions under section 139 of the Criminal Law and not under section 228, which proscribed desecration of a dead body. 32.  On 10 September 2008 a superior prosecutor replied that there were no grounds for examining the actions of the persons who had proceeded with the tissue removal under section 228 of the Criminal Law as desecration of a dead body. The experts had proceeded in accordance with an instruction issued by the Ministry of Justice, implanting other material in the place of the removed tissue. According to the instruction, tissue was to be removed in such a way so as not to mutilate the body, and, if necessary, subsequent restoration was to be carried out. 33.  On 23 October 2008 another superior prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office replied with a final negative decision. 34.  On 11 May 1978 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution (78) 29 on harmonisation of legislations of member States relating to removal, grafting and transplantation of human substances, which recommended that the governments of the member States ensure that their laws conform to the rules annexed to the Resolution or adopt provisions conforming to these rules when introducing new legislation.
Article 10 of this Resolution provides:
“1.  No removal must take place when there is an open or presumed objection on the part of the deceased, in particular, taking into account his religious and philosophical convictions. 2.  In the absence of the explicit or implicit wish of the deceased the removal may be effected. However, a state may decide that the removal must not be effected if, after such reasonable inquiry as may be practicable has been made into the views of the family of the deceased and in the case of a surviving legally incapacitated person those of his legal representative, an objection is apparent; when the deceased was a legally incapacitated person the consent of his legal representative may also be required.” 35.  The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164) is the first international treaty in the field of bioethics. It came into force on 1 December 1999 in respect of the States that had ratified it. Latvia signed the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine on 4 April 1997, ratified it on 25 February 2010, and it came into force in respect of Latvia on 1 June 2010. The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine is not applicable to organ and tissue removal from deceased persons. It concerns organ and tissue removal from living donors for transplantation purposes (Articles 19‑20). 36.  In relation to organ and tissue removal from deceased persons, an Additional Protocol on Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin was adopted (ETS No. 186), to which the Government referred. On 1 May 2006 it came into force in respect of the States that had ratified it. Latvia has neither signed nor ratified this Protocol. 37.  The relevant Articles of the Additional Protocol read as follows.
Article 1 – Object
“Parties to this Protocol shall protect the dignity and identity of everyone and guarantee, without discrimination, respect for his or her integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to transplantation of organs and tissues of human origin.”
Article 16 – Certification of death
“Organs or tissues shall not be removed from the body of a deceased person unless that person has been certified dead in accordance with the law.
The doctors certifying the death of a person shall not be the same doctors who participate directly in removal of organs or tissues from the deceased person, or subsequent transplantation procedures, or having responsibilities for the care of potential organ or tissue recipients.”
Article 17 – Consent and authorisation
“Organs or tissues shall not be removed from the body of a deceased person unless consent or authorisation required by law has been obtained.
The removal shall not be carried out if the deceased person had objected to it.”
Article 18 – Respect for the human body
“During removal the human body must be treated with respect and all reasonable measures shall be taken to restore the appearance of the corpse.”
The relevant parts of the Explanatory Report to the Additional Protocol read as follows.
Introduction
“2.  The purpose of the Protocol is to define and safeguard the rights of organ and tissue donors, whether living or deceased, and those of persons receiving implants of organs and tissues of human origin.”
Drafting of the Protocol
“7.  This Protocol extends the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine in the field of transplantation of organs, tissues and cells of human origin. The provisions of the Convention are to be applied to the Protocol. For ease of consultation by its users, the Protocol has been drafted in such a way that they need not keep referring to the Convention in order to understand the scope of the Protocol’s provisions. However, the Convention contains principles which the Protocol is intended to develop. Accordingly, systematic examination of both texts may prove helpful and sometimes indispensable.”
Comments on the provisions of the Protocol Preamble
“13.  The Preamble highlights the fact that Article 1 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine protecting the dignity and the identity of all human beings and guaranteeing everyone respect for their integrity, forms a suitable basis on which to formulate additional standards for safeguarding the rights and freedoms of donors, potential donors and recipients of organs and tissues.”
Article 1 – Object
“16.  This article specifies that the object of the Protocol is to protect the dignity and identity of everyone and guarantee, without discrimination, respect for his or her integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to transplantation of organs and tissues of human origin. 17.  The term ‘everyone’ is used in Article 1 because it is seen as the most concordant with the exclusion of embryonic and foetal organs or tissues from the scope of the Protocol as stated in Article 2 ... The Protocol solely concerns removal of organs and tissues from someone who has been born, whether now living or dead, and the implantation of organs and tissues of human origin into someone else who has likewise been born.”
Article 16 – Certification of death
“94.  According to the first paragraph, a person’s death must have been established before organs or tissues may be removed ‘in accordance with the law’. It is the responsibility of the States to legally define the specific procedure for the declaration of death while the essential functions are still artificially maintained. In this respect, it can be noted that in most countries, the law defines the concept and the conditions of brain death. 95.  The death is confirmed by doctors following an agreed procedure and only this form of death certification can permit the transplantation to go ahead. The retrieval team must satisfy themselves that the required procedure has been completed before any retrieval operation is started. In some States, this procedure for certification of death is separate from the formal issuance of the death certificate. 96.  The second paragraph of Article 16 provides an important safeguard for the deceased person by ensuring the impartiality of the certification of death, by requiring that the medical team which certifies death should not be the same one that is involved in any stage of the transplant process. It is important that the interests of any such deceased person and the subsequent certification of death are, and are seen to be, the responsibility of a medical team entirely separate from those involved in transplantation. Failure to keep the two functions separate would jeopardise the public’s trust in the transplantation system and might have an adverse effect on donation. 97.  For the purposes of this Protocol, neonates including anencephalic neonates receive the same protection as any person and the rules on certification of death are applicable to them.”
Article 17 – Consent and authorisation
“98.  Article 17 bars the removal of any organ or tissue unless the consent or authorisation required by national law has been obtained by the person proposing to remove the organ or tissue. This requires member States to have a legally recognised system specifying the conditions under which removal of organs or tissues is authorised. Furthermore, by virtue of Article 8, the Parties should take appropriate measures to inform the public, namely about matters relating to consent or authorisation with regard to removal from deceased persons ... 99.  If a person has made known their wishes for giving or denying consent during their lifetime, these wishes should be respected after his/her death. If there is an official facility for recording these wishes and a person has registered consent to donation, such consent should prevail: removal should go ahead if it is possible. By the same token, it may not proceed if the person is known to have objected. Nonetheless, consultation of an official register of last wishes is valid only in respect of the persons entered in it. Nor may it be considered the only way of ascertaining the deceased person’s wishes unless their registration is compulsory. 100.  The removal of organs or tissues can be carried out on a deceased person who has not had, during his/her life, the capacity to consent if all the authorisations required by law have been obtained. The authorisation may equally be required to carry out a removal on a deceased person who, during his/her life, was capable of giving consent but did not make known his wishes regarding an eventual removal post-mortem. 101.  Without anticipating the system to be introduced, the Article accordingly provides that if the deceased person’s wishes are at all in doubt, it must be possible to rely on national law for guidance as to the appropriate procedure. In some States the law permits that if there is no explicit or implicit objection to donation, removal can be carried out. In that case, the law provides means of expressing intention, such as drawing up a register of objections. In other countries, the law does not prejudge the wishes of those concerned and prescribes enquiries among relatives and friends to establish whether or not the deceased person was in favour of organ donation. 102.  Whatever the system, if the wishes of the deceased are not sufficiently established, the team in charge of the removal of organs must beforehand endeavour to obtain testimony from relatives of the deceased. Unless national law otherwise provides, such authorisation should not depend on the preferences of the close relatives themselves for or against organ and tissue donation. Close relatives should be asked only about the deceased persons expressed or presumed wishes. It is the expressed views of the potential donor which are paramount in deciding whether organs or tissue may be retrieved. Parties should make clear whether organ or tissue retrieval can take place if a deceased person’s wishes are not known and cannot be ascertained from relatives or friends. 103.  When a person dies in a country in which he/she is not normally resident, the retrieval team shall take all reasonable measures to ascertain the wishes of the deceased. In case of doubt, the retrieval team should respect the relevant applicable laws in the country in which the deceased is normally resident or, by default, the law of the country of which the deceased person is a national.”
Article 18 – Respect for the human body
“104.  A dead body is not legally regarded as a person, but nonetheless should be treated with respect. This article accordingly provides that during removal the human body must be treated with respect and after removal the body should be restored as far as possible to its original appearance.” 38.  In May 2002 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe sent a questionnaire to the Council of Europe member States concerning aspects of law and practice in relation to transplantation[1]. The Latvian government replied in the affirmative to the question of whether removal from a living donor required authorisation and referred to Articles 19 and 20 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and section 13 of the Law on the protection of the body of a deceased person and use of human organs and tissue. They noted that written consent was required. In their response to the question “What kind of relationships should exist between the living donor of an organ and the recipient?”, they referred to Articles 19 and 20 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. In their response to the question “What sanctions are provided for [organ-trafficking] offenders, in particular, for intermediaries and health professionals?”, the Latvian government referred to section 139 of the Criminal Law (see paragraph 53 below). 39.  On 21 July 1998 the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE)[2] issued Opinion no. 11 on ethical aspects of human tissue banking. Its relevant parts read as follows.
“2.3  Information and consent
The procurement of human tissues requires, as a principle, the prior, informed and free consent of the person concerned. This does not apply in the case of tissue procurement ordered by a judge in the context of judicial, in particular criminal, proceedings.
While consent is a fundamental ethical principle in Europe, the procedures involved and forms of such consent (oral or in writing, before a witness or not, explicit or presumed, etc.) are a matter for national legislation based on the legal traditions of each country.
... 2.3.2  Deceased donors
Consent of a donor for retrieval of tissues after death may take different forms depending on the national systems (‘explicit’ or ‘presumed’ consent). However, no retrieval of tissues may take place, with the exception of judicial proceedings, if the party concerned formally objected while alive. Furthermore, if there has been no expression of will and the applicable system is that of ‘presumed’ consent, doctors must ensure as far as possible that relatives or next of kin have the opportunity to express the deceased person’s wishes, and must take these into account.” 40.  The relevant parts of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells provide as follows.
Article 13 – Consent
“1.  The procurement of human tissues or cells shall be authorised only after all mandatory consent or authorisation requirements in force in the Member State concerned have been met. 2.  Member States shall, in keeping with their national legislation, take all necessary measures to ensure that donors, their relatives or any persons granting authorisation on behalf of the donors are provided with all appropriate information as referred to in the Annex.”
ANNEX – INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED ON THE DONATION OF CELLS AND/OR TISSUES 2.  The confirmed results of the donor’s evaluation must be communicated and clearly explained to the relevant persons in accordance with the legislation in Member States.” 41.  The WHO Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation (endorsed by the sixty-third World Health Assembly on 21 May 2010, Resolution WHA63.22) provide, in so far as relevant, as follows.
Guiding Principle 1
“Cells, tissues and organs may be removed from the bodies of deceased persons for the purpose of transplantation if:
(a)  any consent required by law is obtained, and
(b)  there is no reason to believe that the deceased person objected to such removal.”
Commentary on Guiding Principle 1
“Consent is the ethical cornerstone of all medical interventions. National authorities are responsible for defining the process of obtaining and recording consent for cell, tissue and organ donation in the light of international ethical standards, the manner in which organ procurement is organized in their country, and the practical role of consent as a safeguard against abuses and safety breaches.
Whether consent to procure organs and tissues from deceased persons is ‘explicit’ or ‘presumed’ depends upon each country’s social, medical and cultural traditions, including the manner in which families are involved in decision-making about health care generally. Under both systems any valid indication of deceased persons’ opposition to posthumous removal of their cells, tissues or organs will prevent such removal.
Under a regime of explicit consent – sometimes referred to as ‘opting in’ – cells, tissues or organs may be removed from a deceased person if the person had expressly consented to such removal during his or her lifetime; depending upon domestic law, such consent may be made orally or recorded on a donor card, driver’s license or identity card or in the medical record or a donor registry. When the deceased has neither consented nor clearly expressed opposition to organ removal, permission should be obtained from a legally specified surrogate, usually a family member.
The alternative, presumed consent system – termed ‘opting (or contracting) out’ – permits material to be removed from the body of a deceased person for transplantation and, in some countries, for anatomical study or research, unless the person had expressed his or her opposition before death by filing an objection with an identified office, or an informed party reports that the deceased definitely voiced an objection to donation. Given the ethical importance of consent, such a system should ensure that people are fully informed about the policy and are provided with an easy means to opt out.
Although expressed consent is not required in an opting-out system before removal of the cells, tissues or organs of a deceased person who had not objected while still alive, procurement programmes may be reluctant to proceed if the relatives personally oppose the donation; likewise, in opting-in systems, programmes typically seek permission from the family even when the deceased gave pre-mortem consent. Programmes are more able to rely on the deceased’s explicit or presumed consent, without seeking further permission from family members, when the public’s understanding and acceptance of the process of donating cells, tissues and organs is deep-seated and unambiguous. Even when permission is not sought from relatives, donor programmes need to review the deceased’s medical and behavioural history with family members who knew him or her well, since accurate information about donors helps to increase the safety of transplantation.
For tissue donation, which entails slightly less challenging time constraints, it is recommended always to seek the approval of the next of kin. An important point to be addressed is the manner in which the appearance of the deceased’s body will be restored after the tissues are removed.” 42.  The Law on protection of the body of a deceased person and use of human organs and tissue (likums “Par miruša cilvēka ķermeņa aizsardzību un cilvēka audu un orgānu izmantošanu medicīnā” – “the Law”), as in force at the relevant time (with amendments effective as of 1 November 1995 and up until 31 December 2001), provides in section 2 that every living person with legal capacity is entitled to consent or object, in writing, to the use of his or her body after death. The wish expressed, unless it is contrary to the law, is binding. 43.  Section 3 provides that any such refusal of or consent to the use of one’s body after death has legal effect only if it has been signed by a person with legal capacity, recorded in his or her medical record and denoted by a special stamp in his or her passport. The Department of Health in the Ministry of Welfare is responsible for prescribing the procedure for recording refusal or consent in a person’s medical record (contrast with the situation following legislative amendments effective as of 1 January 2002, Petrova v. Latvia, no. 4605/05, § 35, 24 June 2014). 44.  Pursuant to section 4, which is entitled “The rights of the closest relatives”, the organs and tissues of a deceased person may not be removed against his or her wishes as expressed during his or her lifetime. In the absence of express wishes, removal may be carried out if none of the closest relatives (children, parents, siblings or spouse) objects. Transplantation may be carried out after the biological or brain death of the potential donor (section 10). 45.  More specifically, section 11 of the Law provides that organs and tissue from a deceased donor may be removed for transplantation purposes if that person has not objected to such removal during his or her lifetime and if his or her closest relatives have not prohibited it. 46.  By virtue of a transitional provision of the Law, a stamp in a person’s passport added before 31 December 2001 denoting objection or consent to the use of his or her body after death has legal effect until a new passport is issued or an application to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs is submitted. 47.  Section 17 provides that the State is responsible for protecting the body of a deceased person and for using organs or tissues for medical purposes. At the material time this function was entrusted to the Department of Health in the Ministry of Welfare (as of 1 January 2002, the Ministry of Welfare, as of 30 June 2004, the Ministry of Health). No organisation or authority can carry out the removal of organs and tissues and use them without an authorisation issued by the Department of Health (as of 1 January 2002, the Minister of Welfare, as of 30 June 2004, the Minister of Health). 48.  Section 18 prohibits the selection, transportation and use of the removed organs and tissues for commercial purposes. It also provides that the removal of organs and tissues from any living or deceased person can only be carried out with strict respect for that person’s expressed consent or objection. 49.  Section 21 originally provided that the prosecutor’s office was to supervise compliance with this Law (paragraph 1). The Department of Health of the Ministry of Welfare and other competent bodies were responsible for monitoring the legality of the use of human tissue and organs (paragraph 2). By virtue of amendments effective from 1 January 2002, paragraph 1 was repealed; the remaining paragraph provided that the Ministry of Welfare was to bear responsibility for checking the compatibility of the use of human tissue and organs with law and other legislative instruments. From 30 June 2004 this task was entrusted to the Ministry of Health. Lastly, since 27 August 2012 this section has been repealed in its entirety. 50.  On 2 June 2004 amendments to sections 4 and 11 of the Law were passed by Parliament, effective as of 30 June 2004. From that date onwards, section 4 provides that if no information is recorded in the population register about a deceased person’s refusal of or consent to the use of his or her body, organs or tissue after death, the closest relatives have the right to inform the medical institution in writing of the wishes of the deceased person expressed during his or her lifetime. Section 11 provides that the organs and body tissue of a deceased person may be removed for transplantation purposes if no information is recorded in the population register about the deceased person’s refusal of or consent to the use of his or her organs or body tissue after death and if the closest relatives of the deceased have not, before the start of the transplantation, informed the medical institution in writing of any objection by the deceased person to the use of his or her organs and body tissue after death expressed during his or her lifetime. It is forbidden to remove organs and body tissue from a dead child for transplantation purposes unless one of his or her parents or his or her legal guardian has consented to it in writing. 51.  This Regulation (Noteikumi par miruša cilvēka audu un orgānu uzkrāšanas un izmantošanas kārtību medicīnā) provides that removal of organs and tissue may be carried out after the biological or brain death of a person if his or her passport and medical record contain a stamp denoting consent to such removal (see paragraph 3 of the Regulation). In the absence of such a stamp, the provisions of the Law (see paragraphs 42-50 above) are to be followed. 52.  The legal regulations governing the Inspectorate of Quality Control for Medical Care and Working Capability (“MADEKKI”) in Latvian law are summarised in L.H. v. Latvia (no. 52019/07, §§ 24-27, 29 April 2014). For the purposes of the present case it suffices to note that these regulations ‒ approved by the Cabinet of Ministers (Regulation no. 391 (1999), effective from 26 November 1999 to 30 June 2004) ‒ provided, inter alia, that one of the main functions of the MADEKKI was to monitor the professional quality of healthcare in medical institutions. 53.  Section 139 of the Criminal Law (Krimināllikums) provides that the unlawful removal of organs or tissues from a living or deceased human being in order to use them for medical purposes is a criminal offence if carried out by a medical practitioner. 54.  The relevant provisions pertaining to the rights of civil parties in criminal proceedings under the former Code of Criminal Procedure (Latvijas Kriminālprocesa kodekss, effective until 1 October 2005) are described in Liģeres v. Latvia (no. 17/02, §§ 39-41, 28 June 2011) and Pundurs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 43372/02, §§ 12-17, 20 September 2011). 55.  In addition, the relevant provisions pertaining to the rights of civil parties in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Law (Kriminālprocesa likums, effective from 1 October 2005), as in force at the material time, read as follows.
Section 22 – Right to compensation for damage
“A person who has sustained psychological distress, physical injury or pecuniary loss as a result of a criminal offence shall be guaranteed procedural opportunities to request and receive compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.”
Section 351 – Claim for compensation
“(1)  An injured party shall have the right to submit a claim for compensation for harm caused at any stage of criminal proceedings up to the commencement of a judicial investigation in a court of first instance. The claim shall contain justification of the amount of compensation requested.
(2)  A claim may be submitted in writing or expressed orally. An oral request shall be recorded in the minutes by the person directing the proceedings.
(3)  During pre-trial proceedings, the public prosecutor shall indicate the submission of a claim and the amount of compensation claimed, as well as his or her opinion thereon, in the document concerning the completion of pre-trial proceedings.
(4)  Failure to ascertain the criminal liability of a person shall not be an impediment to the submission of a compensation claim.
(5)  An injured party shall have the right to withdraw a submitted compensation claim at any stage of criminal proceedings up to the moment when the court retires to give judgment. The refusal of compensation by a victim may not constitute grounds for the revocation or modification of charges, or for acquittal.” 56.  Article 92 of the Constitution (Satversme) provides, inter alia, that “any person whose rights are violated without justification has a right to commensurate compensation”. 57.  Domestic legal provisions pertaining to compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under the Civil Law (Civillikums), before and after the amendments that were effective from 1 March 2006, are quoted in full in Zavoloka v. Latvia (no. 58447/00, §§ 17-19, 7 July 2009). Sections 1635 and 1779 are further described in Holodenko v. Latvia (no. 17215/07, § 45, 2 July 2013). 58.  Under section 92 of the Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums), in force since 1 February 2004, everyone has the right to receive commensurate compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage caused by an administrative act or action of a public authority. Under section 93 of the same Law, a claim for compensation can be submitted either together with an application to the administrative courts to declare an administrative act or action of a public authority unlawful, or to the public authority concerned following a judgment adopted in such proceedings. Under section 188, an application to an administrative court regarding an administrative act or action of a public authority must be lodged within one month or one year depending on the circumstances. In relation to an action of a public authority, the one-year time-limit runs from the date on which the applicant finds out that such action has occurred. Lastly, under section 191(1) an application will be refused if more than three years have elapsed since the applicant found out or ought to have found out that such action occurred. This time-limit is not amenable to extension (atjaunots). 59.  The amount of compensation and the procedure for claiming damages from a public authority on account of an unlawful administrative act or an unlawful action of a public authority are prescribed by the Law on compensation for damage caused by public authorities (Valsts pārvaldes iestāžu nodarīto zaudējumu atlīdzināšanas likums), in force since 1 July 2005. Chapter III of the Law provides for the procedure to be followed when an individual claims damages from a public authority. Under section 15, an individual is entitled to lodge an application with the public authority that was responsible for the damage. Pursuant to section 17, such an application must be lodged not later than one year from the date when the individual became aware of the damage and, in any event, not later than five years after the date of the unlawful administrative act or unlawful action of a public authority.