to the case in the yearly report by the Ombudsman, Gillberg and Gothenburg University are criticized for violating the Freedom of Information Act and thus Kärfve's and Elinder's civil right to access to records belonging to the state. Both the lower court and the appeal court were unanimous in finding Gillberg guilty of breach of duty arising from failure to comply in regards to the release of documents; additionally, the Supreme Court of Sweden did not agree to retry Gillberg's breach of duty case. In response to the concerns raised by Gillberg at the trial that a situation had arisen for him whereby "he was prevented by medical ethics and research ethics from disclosing information about the participants in the study and their next-of-kin", the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that "the international declarations drawn up by the World Medical Association and also the European Convention [...] do not categorise them as undertakings that can be considered to take priority over Swedish law." The Parliamentary Ombudsman also stated that, "it is not possible to make decisions on issues concerning confidentiality until the release of a document is requested. It follows therefore that the assurances of confidentiality cited above cannot take priority over the law as it stands or a court's application of the statutes". Law revisions and debate In 2003, a bill was introduced in the Swedish parliament, Riksdagen, due to the secrecy issues raised during the trial that granted the two private individuals access to sensitive personal data. This bill did not pass, but in 2004, a new act on ethical review of research involving humans was introduced. Changes were put in place in order to strengthen the protection for human subjects participating in medical research and to expand the scope of the ethical councils, while bringing the Swedish legislation closer to the European Commission directive. The official act governing medical research was further adjusted in 2008: ethical review is now legally required in Sweden, the review committees have official status, and consent can be withdrawn by participants in medical research at any point. However, voices in the medical research community have raised concerns about law revisions' lack of attention to additional safeguards for researchers falsely accused of scientific misconduct and are calling for procedures that would ensure that scientific misconduct investigations are handled in a correct and legally secure manner. The debate about the case between representatives from the