escalated further in 2002, when Kärfve and Elinder wrote separate letters to Gothenburg University, accusing the Gillberg group of scientific misconduct. The accusations were investigated by the Ethics Council and dismissed. Elinder and Kärfve also demanded access to the original research material for the main DAMP studies. Under a section of the Swedish basic law that grants citizens access to government documents, Elinder and Kärfve were given full access to the documents by an administrative court. The university, the Gillberg group, and the participants of the study were strongly opposed to this decision, on the grounds that the material contained medical records and other sensitive information, and that the participants had been promised full confidentiality. A higher court decided that neither the participants, the researchers, nor their institution, were formally entitled to appeal the decision. When all legal avenues had been exhausted, two of Gillberg's coworkers and a university administrator destroyed the 12–27 years old research material. In the legal aftermath, Gillberg and the rector of Gothenburg University were found guilty of "misuse of office" for not complying with the administrative court's decision. The two researchers (both chief physicians at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, one of them married to Gillberg), defended their decision to shred the files by referring to the promises of confidentiality that had been issued to the subjects of the study and the letters of objection that had been received from the families that they did not want their personal data used or shared with the private individuals. They argued that turning the files over would have exposed the researchers and the university to potential lawsuits from the subjects for failing to honor a written agreement. They were convicted and fined for destruction of government property. In July 2005, the lower criminal court in Gothenburg upheld the right of Kärfve and Elinder to see any data from the Gothenburg study still held by the university. The court fined Gillberg for "misuse of office". In 2006, Gillberg lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). On 17 June 2008, the ECHR announced a "Decision to Communicate" in the case and a request for comment was submitted to the Swedish government, with a 15 October 2008 deadline for the initial response to the charges. Reaction to the ruling The Swedish court's decision to grant the two critics access to the data was controversial. When the study participants