CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

LENKA SCHEU, ANŽELIKA BANEVIČIENĖ that two methods of determining bone age are used in practice, the essence of which consists of assessing the shape and size of the bony parts and the degree of ossification of the epiphysis by means of an X-ray of the hand, which is then compared. However, case law shows that the two methods can lead to different results. For example, the judgment of the Regional Court in Pilsen 61 dealt with a lawsuit brought by three unaccompanied alien minors. Doctors had performed age tests on them using both methods. The evaluation of the X-rays in the case in question was carried out by a specialised department. The medical reports showed that, depending on the method used, the aliens were found to be approximately 18 to 19 years old (GP method - Greulich, Pyle) or 16.5 years old (TW3 method - Tanner, Whitehouse). When the court in Lithuania assessed the credibility of an expert’s conclusion determining a person’s age, it limited the discussion to the expert’s qualifications and work experience. Still, it did not examine the reliability of the age determination methodology itself. 62 For example, in an administrative case Nr. eA-1321-575/2022, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, while analysing the credibility of the expert’s conclusion, discussed the qualification of the expert. 63 The court was confident about the analysis’s reliability, ability to evaluate medical data, and presentation of the correct conclusion because the expert was the forensic expert of the Medical Forensics Laboratory of the State Forensic Medicine Service, had medical education with specialisation in forensic medicine, had a doctorate in medical sciences, was qualified to perform medical forensics and osteology research and had 17 years of work experience. However, in this case, the applicant challenged the expert’s findings because he might have underestimated that individuals reach physical maturity earlier than the residents of Central Europe in the applicant’s country of origin. It is worth noting that the experts’ experience in analysing European population data does not necessarily indicate that the expert is familiar with the genetic characteristics of the population of other parts of the world. Lithuanian courts recognise experts’ conclusions on age assessment in other countries, even though the experts in those countries use a different age assessment methodology. For example, the court relied on the conclusions of Polish experts when establishing the person’s age (19 years old), although the findings were obtained by analysing only the wrist X-ray. 64 In Lithuania, when several experts’ conclusions about age determination differ, the court relies on the decision based on the analysis of X-rays of more parts of the person’s body. For example, the court analysed the results of two contradicting expert opinions. In one conclusion, the age was determined by X-rays of the hands and X-rays of the chest and hands in the other. The court relied in its decision on the second conclusion. 65 In Lithuanian court practice, when a foreigner submits a document showing that their age contradicts the expert’s opinion on the age assessment, Lithuanian institutions mostly rely on the expert’s opinion. For the state authorities to trust the authenticity of the submitted documents, the foreigner’s country of origin must officially confirm that the documents submitted by the person are genuine. To do this is particularly difficult when the country of origin does not cooperate or provide any information. For example, administrative case No. A-3673-822/2015 presents a situation where the Migration Department asked the foreigner’s 61 Judgment Supreme Administrative Court of 24 July 2019, No. 17 A 121/2019-74. 62 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. eA-3586-525/2022, 10 August 2022. 63 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. eA-1321-575/2022, 23 February 2022. 64 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. A-4354-261/2021, 16 December 2021. 65 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. eA-1391-492/2023, 22 February 2023.

114