In the renewed procedure, the court held several hearings, heard the petitioner and witnesses; it can be expected that a decision will be issued soon and it remains to be seen whether the petition will be granted this time. There is an interesting case in which the court denied the petition stating that the examined witnesses did not know the exact dates of children’s birth, and did not accept the written evidence (vaccination records and school certificate) because they had not been issued by the competent authorities of Serbia (they were issued in Kosovo after 1999). The Higher Court repealed this decision, referring to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides that every child will be entitled to a personal name immediately after birth, and that the lack of documents in the most sensitive period of life contradicts the best interest of the child. The decision of the second-instance court stresses also that the procedure of determining the date and place of birth undoubtedly has a series of specific characteristics whose purpose is to simplify the registration of legally invisible persons into birth registry books, and that the enclosed vaccination records and school certificates, along with additional checks and hearing of the petitioner and other witnesses, can facilitate the determination of date and place of birth. Unlike many decisions issued in the procedures of determining the date and place of birth (some of which are quoted in this report), often based on the incorrect implementation of the law, a lack of understanding of the problem of legally invisible persons and the purpose of the procedure of determining the date and place of birth, as well as the neglect of basic human rights and the violation of the provisions of the Constitution and ratified international conventions, this decision is a shining example of a completely different approach and shows how the courts actually should implement these procedures and which criteria they should use, and as such it could serve as a model. FEES: Again in some cases the courts required the petitioners to pay the fees for petitions and decisions, although the law prescribes that the petitioner shall be exempt from paying all the costs of the procedure.7 In such cases Praxis pointed out to the courts that the petitioners were not obliged to pay the fees, and the courts no longer insisted on such payments. However, some petitioners without legal knowledge and legal aid would be brought to the situation where, due to incorrect court actions, they have to pay the costs clearly prescribed not to be their obligation. CONTENT AND EXECUTION OF DECISIONS: As regards the decisions determining the date and place of birth, more than once the enacting clauses did not contain all the necessary information or some pieces of information were incorrectly stated, and in such cases it was necessary to request correction of decisions or supplemental decisions, which unnecessarily prolonged the procedures, sometimes for several months. For example, one decision contained only the information on the petitioner’s name and surname, sex and date of birth, and the fact that he was born in Belgrade, the father’s name and the mother’s name and surname. There was no information about the municipality of birth, the father’s surname, dates and places of birth for parents, although the petition was accompanied by evidence based on which these pieces of information could be determined. Complete and accurate information about parents is particularly important for acquiring citizenship by descent, given that the registrars who execute decisions and perform registration of the facts of birth and citizenship in birth registry books can question the identity of parents and refuse to register citizenship. The same problem can occur in conducting procedures for determining citizenship before the Ministry of Interior (MoI). 7 Article 71and the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure. 6