Fundamental rights section emphatically pointed out to the hospital personnel that they did not want an autopsy for religious reasons. A doctor informed them the next day, that a postmortem examination had to be performed on the corpse in order to be able to ascertain the exact cause of death and expressly assured them that no full autopsy, but only a small incision in the abdominal wall would be performed. The corpse was released one day later than agreed upon, and without further explanations of the type and extent of the postmortem examination. During the ritual washing of the dead, the parents saw that the corpse of their son, despite an assurance to the contrary, had been subjected to a complete autopsy. It was only one week after burial that the parents learned that the entire brain had been removed during the autopsy, so that it was not the complete corpse of the child that had been buried. In addition to the tragic loss of her son, the complainant now had to deal with the circumstance that she had not buried her son according to her religious customs, which is why she felt that the hospital had deceived her with respect to the type and extent of the postmortem examination. This tragic case affects the fundamental basic right to the freedom of religion. This basic right, anchored in Art. 14 of the 1867 constitution and Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular includes the freedom to practice one’s religion by observing religious customs. Restrictions are only permissible if provided for by law and necessary and reasonable in a democratic society to pursue a legitimate goal, e.g. the protection of the health of the population or the subject of the basic rights. The legal regulations furthermore provide that the corpses of patients who died in public hospitals must be autopsied if the autopsy was directed by the medical police or a court, or is necessary to safeguard other public or scientific interests. This can be the case particularly because of diagnostic unclarity. If none of these cases apply and the decedent has not agreed to an autopsy while alive, an autopsy may only be performed with the consent of the closest relatives. Any autopsy against the wishes of the relatives who see themselves unable to grant their consent for religious reasons is an intrusion in the freedom of religion. An autopsy against the wishes of the family is only permissible if the objective pursued by the autopsy, health protection in this case, is of greater importance than the intrusion in the freedom of religion. This is the case, for example, if the cause of death is not adequately explicable or if there are diagnostic unclarities. In this case, the autopsy contributes to the determination of the exact cause of death and to the gaining of important knowledge for similar diseases in the future. The comments of the Vienna 32nd Report of the Austrian Ombudsman Board to the National Council and the Federal Council 2008 31